Two Men Arrested For Having Sex With Each Other On Gay Cruise Ship

Believe it or not, a gay cruise ship might not be the ideal place to have gay sex, as two men found out when the ship was docked at an island in the Caribbean. How could that be? Well, if the country the ship is visiting just so happens to still have “buggery” on the books as illegal, your sex life could get you arrested.

Two men from California were arrested for having sex with each other while aboard a gay cruise ship, the Celebrity Summit, reports CBS 2 in L.A. The ship was docked in the little country of Dominica, where sodomy, or as they call it, buggery, is illegal. The men were only charged with indecent exposure, however.

The men were having sex in their cabin aboard the ship, and just it just happened, their drapes were open, and someone on the dock saw them and complained. If found guilty, they will face a $370 fine and a possible six months in jail.

One might think that a gay cruise ship would have the foresight to either not dock in countries that outlaw gay sex, or at least the company who organized the trip, Atlantis Events, should warn their passengers that they could be in danger of being arrested for just going about their own darn business.

A travel agent who booked several passengers on the ship warns there are four key areas in the Caribbean to avoid due to anti-gay laws: “Never Jamaica, never the Cayman Islands, never the Bahamas, and never Dominica.”

2 Gay Men Arrested For Having Sex With Each Other On Cruise Ship In The Caribbean [CBS 2 L.A.]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    They had the curtains open and were charged with indecent exposure. It could have happened to a straight couple.

    • FatLynn says:

      In theory. I wrote the same thing below. In practice, however, it’s very likely that the authorities would respond to complaints about a gay couple and not a straight one. Heteronormative privilege and all that.

    • pamelad says:

      Doesn’t matter whether they were a gay or heterosexual couple.

      They left the blinds open and were seen from the ship‚Äôs deck. That might have been just an oversight or an exhibitionist thrill. I suspect the latter. But no matter where the ship was docked, even near their U.S. state of California, they could have been charged with indecent exposure. Passion can overrule good judgment, especially while on a ship outside another country, with beautiful calm turqouise seas all around… can help make one crazy in love.

      But indecent exposure is never in good taste.

      I don’t see this as a piece of the puzzle of Dominica’s repression.

  2. FatLynn says:

    Are they being detained? Can’t they just, um, go home and ignore Dominica? Or were authorities actually allowed to come on the boat and arrest them?

    On one hand, this is hugely irresponsible of the booking company, but on the other hand, close your damn blinds! A straight couple could theoretically have the exact same charges against them if they had sex in front of an open window.

    • FatLynn says:

      Okay, I take back virtually everything in this comment after reading a second source. It is clear that a) the police were allowed to get on the ship and detain these men and b) the arrests were motivated by homophobic sentiment.

    • Chipzilla says:

      Wow. How is it the cruise line or the booking company’s fault?

      Was the cruise sold to tourists as a floating gay sex-a-thon where they’d be immune from the law?

      Maybe the cruise line didn’t think people would be dumb enough to have sex in public view… Not hating on gay sex – I’d call a hetero couple dumbasses if they were caught doing the same thing.

      Won’t somebody think of the children? etc.

  3. bluline says:

    Is there anything to prevent the men from just leaving the country when the ship departs?

  4. Naked-Gord-Program says:

    “One might think that a gay cruise ship would have the foresight to either not dock in countries that outlaw gay sex”

    Indeed. Once this ordeal is over I wonder if they’ll have a negligence case against the cruise ship company.

    Once gay marriage is legalized in every state hopefully the next phase of gay rights will look at supporting sanctions against nations with regressive anti-gay bigot laws.

    • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

      This has nothing to do with being gay. They were having sex in front of an open window and were charged with indecent exposure- not charged with buggery. The negligence was theirs for not closing the curtains.

      • FatLynn says:

        They were arrested on suspicion of both IE and buggery, though only charged with the former, according to MSNBC. It would be very difficult to say that the fact they were two men had nothing to do with the police’s decision to act.

        • George4478 says:

          And you have reviewed Dominica’s arrest history to see that heterosexual sex in public is OK and participants are not charged with indecent exposure? Since you think this is an anti-gay thing, not an anti-sex in public thing.

          • Lydecker says:

            You mean “Since you think this is an anti-gay thing, not an anti-sex in your private room on a cruise when the blind happen to be open.”

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        I think it’s naive to believe the call to police and subsequent arrest was not motivated by anti-gay sentiment.

        • Jawaka says:

          But now we’re assuming things even though none of us were there and it happened 1000 miles away. They were screwing in front of an open window and got busted for indecent exposure. Those are facts.

      • The Porkchop Express says:

        I agree that they should have closed the blinds, but this probably has everything to do with who was banging who.

        I don’t think a straight couple would be in this situation for the same actions.

      • Shadowman615 says:

        Read some other sources — this had everything to do with the fact that they were gay, no matter what they were technically charged with. Gays are apparently not welcomed in Dominica.

        Check out the comments.
        http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/all-news/general/update-gay-cruise-ship-docks-in-dominica-two-passengers-arrested-for-buggery-indecent-exposure/

      • Zyada says:

        I would think that depends on what the window positioning was like. First, they were on the cruise ship, not in a hotel.
        Were they on the port side of the ship? Was the ship close enough to land that they were easily seen by passers-by? Were they at eye level?

        Or was the only way to see them to be on a boat in the bay, using binoculars & standing on a ladder? I think they could have been excused for not realizing that someone might see them in that case.

        Reading another story, it sounds like they were visible from land, and that alcohol and stupidity were involved.

    • dolemite says:

      Yeah, but first they’ll have to get by Republican legislation that denies a gay spouse health insurance due to employers’ “moral objections”.

    • nbs2 says:

      Because, clearly, sanctions are going to be effective. I remember when Iran was getting nailed for not opening up its nuclear program, sanctions brought them to their knees in a matter of days. Of course, that’s nothing compared to Iraq, where the only people to suffer because of sanctions there were the rich and powerful decisionmakers.

      Just as bad as forcing democracy at the point of a gun is forcing cultural change at the clink of a coin (or whatever the equivalent is for economic sanctions). Change through education and exposure leads to changed hearts. Change through force breeds anger and resentment.

      That being said, unless someone can show me evidence that the witness specifically was bothed because of the nature of the intimacy or that the police only pursued the issue because of it, the facts are that they were guilty of indecent exposure, regardless of how much Mary slants the story.

      Last, but not least, how do you tell the difference between a gay ship and a straight ship? I thought they all had the same equipment and reproduced asexually.

    • RandomHookup says:

      But would they have taken similar action to any couple having sex with the curtains open? That qualifies as illegal, in almost any jurisdiction.

    • Jawaka says:

      You can’t force others to have the same values and beliefs as you do.

      • tungstencoil says:

        No, but you can make outward expressions of bigotry that limit others’ freedoms illegal. Your statement is ridiculous in a modern context.

        That’s like saying my (religious) beliefs make it illegal for my wife to own property or vote, or that my religious beliefs clearly show black people are the cast-off Sons of Noah (I’m not making this up) who are only suited to, essentially, being slaves.

        If you want to be a bigot, I agree – you have the right to be one, and you have the right to stand up on a mountain or crowded street corner and spill your filth. You do not, however, have the right to justify restrictions of others’ freedoms under the guise of “you can’t force others to believe something.”

        • axhandler1 says:

          *Slow clap*

          Exactly what I wanted to say, but you put it into words perfectly.

        • Stickdude says:

          you can make outward expressions of bigotry that limit others’ freedoms illegal.

          So you believe that limiting others’ freedom is morally wrong and you want to impose that belief on society at large. Gotcha.

          For the record, I do agree with you. I just recognize that all laws – not just laws I disagree with – necessarily involve imposing someone’s notions of how society should work on everyone

        • Jawaka says:

          In many cases people use the word bigotry to mean “You should have the same beliefs as I do”.

      • Naked-Gord-Program says:

        You can’t force them but you can refuse to deal with or enable them until they reform their ways.

        Examples:

        You want a loan from the IMF? Homophobic bigoted laws need to go.

        You want free a trade agreement? Homophobic bigoted laws need to go.

    • Billy says:

      Negligence? What did the cruise ship fail to do that lead to their injury? Is it that the cruise ship didn’t tell them that there is some stuff that’s illegal in other countries? That’s a given, no?

      • Naked-Gord-Program says:

        “Is it that the cruise ship didn’t tell them that there is some stuff that’s illegal in other countries? That’s a given, no?”

        When you go on a gay cruise it should be safely assumed by the customer that every country the ship docks in will be a country where homosexuality isn’t illegal.

        • Kuri says:

          Or at the least that you would be informed if you were going to be in a place where certain activities may get you arrested.

        • Billy says:

          That’s a bit like saying: when you go on a cruise where they let you walk around in public with drinks, you can safely assume that you can walk around with your drinks in the country you are visiting.

          Just because it’s a “gay cruise” doesn’t mean that the cruise line had any duty to warn its customers about the law. It might be bad business, but not negligence.

          But now that I think about it, I bet that the cruise line DID have something in its contract about following the laws in the country where the boat docked. Nobody reads those things, though.

          • Lydecker says:

            More like, when you go on a cruise where they let you walk around in public with drinks, you can safely assume that you can still walk around on the boat with drinks when it’s docked in a country. It may be quite unexpected to read things like “these activities are only allowed when we are not in sight of land.”

    • rmorin says:

      This could be the most ill informed comment of the day, congratulations. You are advocating wide-spread American interventionism?!

      So you want to invade Iran? You support our embargo on Cuba? Because those are right in line with your flawed logic.

      You make change through education and societal shifts in attitudes, not America playing boss of the world and telling what’s what, that breads nothing but contempt.

      But I bet you totally watched KONY2012 on youtube so you definitely know what you are talking about.

      • Naked-Gord-Program says:

        Hey Charlie but I said nothing about invading Iran or whatever nonsense you dropped out with your morning turd.

        Sanctions could be trade sanctions or any number of things.

        It’s one thing for first world countries to not agree with the anti-gay bigot countries out there but the US (or Canada, the UK etc) can decide not to have anything to do with them *if* they have these regressive laws.

        • rmorin says:

          the US (or Canada, the UK etc) can decide not to have anything to do with them *if* they have these regressive laws.

          Again proving absolute your ignorance. What do you mean “not have anything to do with them”? No formal relationships at all? That would be over 100 countries ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_laws ) we cut diplomatic and economic ties with!?! Do you have any idea the crap you are spewing?

          If you notice, many, many countries with regressive laws are incredibly poor and rely on programs like the World Food Programme (which the U.S. government contributes towards) and other foreign aid to simply stop people from starving. Other countries rely on U.S. trade as meaningful parts of their economy. Your response shows an absolute ignorance towards the economic and people costs of the world economy if the U.S. decides an either isolationist or interventionist response based on other countries LGBTQ laws.

          Best case scenario, hundreds of thousands of people around the world die of starvation, worst case is that you deteriorate or eliminate formal relationships with countries leading to further instability in already volatile regions.

          Seriously, take a world politics class at a community college, or even read non-biased news and you’ll understand the ridiculousness of what you are suggesting.

          • Verdant Pine Trees says:

            Dude, the very good and solid points you’re making are almost negated by your anger at him. You preach against unilateralism, but then you disagree with him in a way that makes a shift in HIS attitude very difficult. You could have had a much better conversation! (Cat is excellent at making me laugh even when I disagree with him).

            Also, KONY2012? I don’t think that’s fair… considering Invisible Children’s support of Uganda’s current government, about the most anti-gay you can get — and the number of homophobic financial supporters of IC.

            It’s interesting to think about how long it would take for every part of the US to allow gay marriage. (10-20 years? I live in Texas… and even with Annise Parker being mayor of Texas, you’ve got dillweeds from the local mega church tearing her down) By that point, I think the number of nations that would have anti-gay laws would themselves be much, much smaller.

      • chargernj says:

        I think he means something more along the lines of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act which imposed economic sanctions against South Africa.

  5. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    If anyone cares, it’s not pronounced like the Dominican Republic.

    It has a heavy emphasis on the “ni”, such as Do-mi-NI-ca.

    I expect a few Monty Python quotes below.

  6. Blueskylaw says:

    “Two Men Arrested For Having Sex With Each Other On Gay Cruise Ship”

    Well color me pink.

  7. Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

    Incoming shitstorm….

  8. Back to waiting, but I did get a cute dragon ear cuff says:

    Reading just the fine summary, this has NOTHING to do with gay cruises, buggery or sodomy.

    2 naked (I assume so) people were have sexual relations with the blinds open and in view of the public. They were then charged with indecent exposure.

    I really don’t think that the issue of gay belongs in this story.

    • FatLynn says:

      They were arrested on suspicion of both IE and buggery. While only charged with the former, the reporting and subsequent arrest were very likely motivated by homophobic sentiment.

    • exconsumer says:

      Yeah, but it probably does. Would a straight couple have been treated the same way? I don’t think they would. The onlooker wouldn’t have cared, and should they have chosen to report it, the police would have waved it off, or issued a warning.

    • The Porkchop Express says:

      did you read the charges? this has everything to do with being gay. hell, they probably have nude beaches there.

      • George4478 says:

        I read them. Did you? Indecent exposure was the only charge.

      • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

        No they don’t.

      • StarKillerX says:

        First it’s obvious that it’s you that hasn’t read the story as they have only been charged with indecent exposure and second are you suggesting that nude beaches in a country means that people are allowed to have sex in public?

    • Hoss says:

      I agree. The police probably weren’t sure two males were involved until they got to the room. It goes without saying that any nude activity visible to the public might be arrestable. I think the reported enjoyed saying buggery even though that was not the charge. (He also says sodomy is buggery — that’s a maybe, not a definite…)

  9. Storie says:

    They were sentenced this morning. They got $900 each in fines and two months in prison.

  10. There's room to move as a fry cook says:
  11. pdxtechguy says:

    Um… it’s more than likely that I’m not up-to-snuff on the more pertinent details of international cruise ship travelling, but I thought that as long as you don’t leave the ship, then you’re still subject to the “law of the land” of the home port of the ship, which I would presume to be in the US, right?

    • framitz says:

      Once inside the waters of another country you come under THEIR laws. The ship was docked, so was subject to local laws.

      Being an American citizen grants you no special privilege. Americans with this ‘privileged’ attitude are the UGLY Americans that give us all a bad reputation around the world. I’ve traveled quite a bit and have seen this privileged behavior, it makes me sick.

    • thomwithanh says:

      That’s only while you’re in international waters.

    • dangermike says:

      I think most cruise ships are chartered out of scandinavian countries. Primarily Norway, if I remember correctly.

      • dangermike says:

        Also, I think the laws of the local nation apply until you reach international waters, which is generally accepted as 12 miles offshore.

  12. Stickdude says:

    Am I the only one who thinks that Mary Beth secretly wishes this were HuffPo and not a consumer-focused blog?

    Indecent exposure is indecent exposure whether you’re gay, straight, or like to get it on with goats.

    If they were in fact arrested for buggery, Mary could rant all she wants; but given the fact that they weren’t, this is a complete non-story.

    • Cat says:

      But gays are consumers, too.

    • crispyduck13 says:

      So if you were gay, and were planning on booking a cruise with your partner for some romantic R&R in the near future, this article wouldn’t bring some really scary questions up?

      This is a consumer blog for all consumers. Just because the issue doesn’t apply directly to your consumption doesn’t mean the blog is straying off course.

      I don’t get a bug up my ass everytime there’s a BestBuy post on here, even though I’ve never set foot in one.

      • nbs2 says:

        Problem is, the moral of the story is that everybody should close their blinds whether on a cruise ship, a Burger King bathroom, or at home. Beyond speculation (save for one comment that mentions a second source – hardly enough to condemn), nobody here has presented any evidence that it had anything to do with homosexuality.

        • crispyduck13 says:

          “The men were arrested for ‚Äúbuggery,‚Äù but have only been charged with indecent exposure, apparently a lesser charge…Sodomy, or as it‚Äôs called in Dominica ‚Äúbuggery,‚Äù is illegal there.”

          Where’s this “speculation” you speak of? Just because they weren’t charged with that means everything is hunky dorey?

          • nbs2 says:

            Witness: “Officer, some people are having sex in public view.”
            Dispatch: “Indecent Exposure? OK, we’ll check it out.”
            (cops arrive on scene)
            Officer: “Hi, we’re here about a report of indecent exposure. Someone reported seeing people here having sex.”
            Witness: “Yeah, them – two rooms on the boat.”
            Officer: “I see them.”
            (cops go to boat and make arrest)
            Officer at room 1: “Hi, I am arresting you for having sex in public view, indecent exposure. Oh, I see that you are both men who were engaged in the observed sex act. Since neither of you has a vagina that could be penetrated, I can and will also arrest you for buggery.”
            Officer at room 2: “Hi, I am arresting you for having sex in public view, indecent exposure. Sir, can you please tell me where your penis was inserted?”
            Arrestee in room 2: “It was in her anus.”
            Officer in room 2: “Ah. Well, in that case, I can and will also arrest you for buggery.”

            And there you have it – a reasonable scenario in which two couples, one homosexual and the other heterosexual, are both arrested for the same thing as was mentioned in the article. Homosexuality is made irrelevant.

            • Lydecker says:

              I question your definition of the word “reasonable,” if you think that turn of events is reasonable.

      • Stickdude says:

        If the focus of the article had been the fact that gay cruise ships might dock where sodomy is illegal, I’d have no problem with it – that would be a legitimate consumer issue. But that really wasn’t the focus of the article, was it?

        • crispyduck13 says:

          “One might think that a gay cruise ship would have the foresight to either not dock in countries that outlaw gay sex, or at least the company who organized the trip, Atlantis Events, should warn their passengers that they could be in danger of being arrested for just going about their own darn business.

          A travel agent who booked several passengers on the ship warns there are four key areas in the Caribbean to avoid due to anti-gay laws: “Never Jamaica, never the Cayman Islands, never the Bahamas, and never Dominica.”

          It was the focus of the article actually, the entire last 2 paragraphs in fact. If you can’t look past the gay half to the consumer half then that’s no one’s fault but your own.

          • Stickdude says:

            If you believe that the focus of an article should be tacked onto the end as an afterthought, fine – we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

            • crispyduck13 says:

              And if you believe that thoroughly and correctly explaining a situation in an article with citation so that readers can understand it is somehow veering off topic then we’ll just have to agree to…

              To hell with it, you’re just wrong. I’m guessing Phil’s 2 sentence summaries are more your speed.

              • Stickdude says:

                I’m guessing Phil’s 2 sentence summaries are more your speed.

                And now come the personal insults.

                Well played.

                I do promise to stop complaining about the content of this blog because – a) I have zero editorial control over what gets covered here, and b) I am always free to start my own consumer-focused blog if I don’t like this one. :)

    • exconsumer says:

      Totally with you, my friend. I HATE it when people bring up things like this. I mean, sure, these gay people are consumers of this ship’s services, and the ship even markets itself to gay men, and are now in a bit of a pickle for actions that may have been tolerated (or encouraged) otherwise, actions that they may not have realized were illegal. I suppose, in the right light, this could be considered a consumer issue, something to be aware of . . . . But that’s only if they counted as REAL people, or REAL consumers, which they aren’t. Only straight people count as consumers.

    • AldisCabango says:

      Actually they were arrested for both Indencency and Buggery. If they were a straight couple they would not have been arrested for buggery. Only the indecent exposure, if someone complained about a straight couple having sex with curtains open.

      • APFPilot says:

        Buggery is actually defined as a man having anal sex with a man or woman, so you can speculate all you want but you can’t say that is the case.

        • crispyduck13 says:

          So if it had been a straight couple the witness on the dock would have called the cops because he would automatically assume the man was putting it in the woman’s butt? Right??

          • APFPilot says:

            maybe, maybe not. I am sure however they would call the police regardless of what hole the guy was in.

          • partofme says:

            No; if it had been a straight couple, the witness on the dock would have called the cops because he/she would automatically assume the couple was indecently exposed, by having sex in the public view.

            Really, the outrage here is simply that other countries have buggery laws. Everything else is just window dressing and posturing. How do I know this? Tell the exact same story, except without the claim of the investigation of buggery. Suddenly, the outrage disappears, regardless of hypotheticals concerning who was involved. So be outraged that another country has a law you disagree with… but don’t slather it in window dressing or posturing.

  13. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

    Why does the sexual orientation of the cruise ship matter? What two ships do in the privacy of their own dock/harbor is none of our business.

  14. El_Fez says:

    Well, bugger me!

  15. Cat says:

    Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Boat?

  16. deathbecomesme says:

    If they were two HOT lesbian women……..

    I rest my case

  17. axolotl says:

    “A travel agent who booked several passengers on the ship warns there are four key areas in the Caribbean to avoid due to anti-gay laws”

    What the heck?? Why did they book people for a gay cruise to Dominica if they already knew this??

  18. AldisCabango says:

    Atlantis should never have charterec a cruise to countries that are openly anti-gay. Including Jamaica, Cayman Islands and teh Bahamas.

  19. Cat says:

    It’s stories like this that make me wonder where Jenny Cupcakes is.

    *Ahem*
    BUTTSEX OR GTFO!

  20. ancientone567 says:

    An ignorance of the law is not a defense. Know the laws of the countries you are going too. Many still have gay as illegal.http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

  21. Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

    lol “docked”

  22. atthec44 says:

    If the ship was docked…

    why can’t the passengers?

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docking

  23. rockelscorcho says:

    I know they had the drapes open, which is stupid, but buggery is a law that can’t really be enforced unless your dumb enough to get caught by showing everyone your buggery.

  24. makoto says:

    Funny… having just come back from a cruise ship that docked at that very location, there is no one but other passengers and ship crew that could have seen them and complained. The ship yard/port isn’t anywhere near where the actual citizens are. I find this to be outrageous that a cruise ship wouldn’t even warn it’s gay passengers about this, let alone a gay cruise ship. It doesn’t matter if the curtains were opened or not.

  25. loueloui says:

    Well blow me down…

  26. Kuri says:

    Shouldn’t the cruise ship have informed people.

    Though this could have happened to any number of people.

  27. flychinook says:

    Aren’t the windows of cruise ships usually several stories higher than the docks? Short of them doing it directly against the window, I don’t know how somebody saw them in one of the ship’s cabins, short of getting a higher vantage point and using binoculars.

  28. AdviceDog says:

    Only 2 people out of the whole crew?

    Talk about an unromantic cruise.

  29. tundey says:

    The lesson here is close the blinds before getting it on, whatever your sexual orientation.

  30. HogwartsProfessor says:

    Remember to close the drapes next time.

  31. karlmarx says:

    I think the US government needs to step in and get them out of this mess.

  32. blueman says:

    If you read other sources you’ll find that they were originally charged with buggery (great word) but that charge was later dropped because it would have taken too long to expedite.

    So, yes, this was NOT simply about indecent exposure.

  33. Nick Wright says:

    Cayman, my ass!