• commentary
  • TUESDAY NOVEMBER 14 2006 7:00 PM

Feds: No Fucking on Planes

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Tags: planes, sex

Becoming a member of the mile high club is a staple fantasy of virtually every frat boy in the nation. While the prospect of getting it on in a cramped, smelly airplane bathroom or underneath a dingy blanket on uncomfortable seats with an armrest up one's butt is hardly appealing for most air travelers, it has nevertheless not deterred many intrepid explorers from attaining this avionic sexual merit badge. But it seems that era may be coming to a close, with the federal government apparently cracking down on the more egregious attempts of people to enter into this exclusive organization.

California couple are facing federal charges after allegedly refusing to stop "overt sexual activity" on a flight to Raleigh, North Carolina.

Carl Warren Persing, of Lakewood, California, and Dawn Elizabeth Sewell, of Huntington Beach, California, were indicted on charges of interfering with flight crew members during their September 15 Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles.

According to court documents, flight attendants saw Persing and Sewell kissing, embracing and "acting in a manner that made other passengers uncomfortable" while the plane was stopped in Phoenix.

A flight attendant asked them to stop. They obeyed initially but resumed the behavior during the flight from Phoenix to Raleigh, authorities said.

When the flight attendant again requested them to stop, Persing allegedly told the flight attendant: "I'm going to give you one warning to get out of my face."


This would seem to fall into the "don't they have anything better to do with their time?" category. Certainly even a ham sandwich can be indicted (which is where the case, U.S. v. Carl Warren Persing and Dawn Elizabeth Sewell, currently stands) but directing a US attorney to prosecute individuals who wouldn't stop making out when a flight attendant asked them and then tells the attendant to go away seems like a somewhat ridiculous usage of a law passed to ensure airline security.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
SocietysPliers

SocietysPliers

Ocala, FL
October 2004

NOV 14, 2006 10:17 PM

Eh.

Who gives a flying fuck?








tongue

catatac

catatac

San Diego, CA
June 2005

NOV 14, 2006 10:22 PM

HAHAHA!! smile ^^That was funny.

And also, fuck those idiots. I don't wanna see, hear or smell sex when I'm stuck in a fucking tube for hours. I imagine many others are with me on this one. A little respect for others, please.

ASSH0LE

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV
June 2003

NOV 15, 2006 12:04 AM

Certainly even a ham sandwich can be indicted



True. And the Statute of Limitations doesn't cover murder...



Technically speaking, I'm not even old enough to get that joke. frown

Waldo_Jeffers

Waldo_Jeffers

United Kingdom
OLD SKOOL

NOV 15, 2006 01:06 AM

Pyrotechnocracy said:
I see a new market for "specialized sex planes" to help compensate for consumer demand in the future....just imagine the paint job on the outside of those planes



Ha!! Do you think they'd play cheesy porn-film music on board?

Otoki

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

NOV 15, 2006 02:46 AM

^^The airline could make additional money off the recordings of those flights. Amateur porn! WOOHOO!!1!one

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

NOV 15, 2006 05:35 AM

craftygrrl said:

I'm also willing to bet that most of us have worked enough service jobs to be able to appreciate a situation where there is actually a consequence to be faced for being an arrogant prick to someone whose job it is to be nice to you.




Well said. Also, I'm sorry... you may think it's your right to get freaky on a plane, but it's MY right to not want to see or hear it. It's a what... 4 hour plane ride and you can't keep it in your goddamn pants? Get some fucking respect. puke



I agree with the both of you in principle, however, giving wait staff the power of Federal law and 20 year prison sentences seems a bit much, eh?

It would make much more since for Airlines to develop their own "Don't not fly" lists of asshole customers. Restaranteurs do it all the time.

This law was designed for people who pose an actual threat to safety, using it for assholes cheapens it. Airline staff take themselves wayyyy to fucking seriously these days, in part because of this law.

Any judge worth his/her salt will laugh the prosecutor on this out of his/her courtroom.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

NOV 15, 2006 05:37 AM

Benhamin said:
the actions they were undertaking are not really the issue here. The primary issue is that the couple were threatening to the attendants. Judging by the statement to the effect of "i'm only going to warn you once to get out of my face," that sounds like a threat. And that, is a crime. Thanks to the Findlaw link we can see that they are charged with violating Title 49 subsection 46504:

"An individual on an aircraft ...who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both."

Basically, they may get thrown in jail, but most likely they will be fined. It is, essentially, irrelevent to their case that they were having sex/making out/whatever. So, you're still safe to fuck in an airplane, just don't get all pissy when someone tells you to stop.



That "threat" could as easily mean I am going to report you to your supervisor as it could violence.

As I said above - wait staff should not have the rights of federal marshalls. It turns them into puffed up toads.

filmjedi

filmjedi

Brighton, MA
June 2004

NOV 15, 2006 05:47 AM

what hte airplanes should do is sell suites so u can fuck on them, sound proof, comfortable, and expensive.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

NOV 15, 2006 05:52 AM

benhasglasses said:
what hte airplanes should do is sell suites so u can fuck on them, sound proof, comfortable, and expensive.



Indeed - the "conservatives" in this country say that the "free market" can solve all problems. Let's let it solve this one.

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

NOV 15, 2006 06:14 AM

zerokewl said:
Sound like a business opportunity to me! Start up an independent airline that welcomes the free thinking and sexually open minded. Keep all the fucking right winged, bible thumbing, repulblicans down on the ground in there gas guzzling cars and out of the friendly sky.



I think theres been an attempt at such an Airline

mrpenbrook

mrpenbrook

Oak Park, IL
February 2004

NOV 15, 2006 07:27 AM

NickFaust said:
I agree with the both of you in principle, however, giving wait staff the power of Federal law and 20 year prison sentences seems a bit much, eh?



The problem is, you can't call the cops on a plane. Maybe there's a marshall on board and maybe not. It's not a perfect system but it seems that giving the "wait staff" some kind of lawful authority is the best compromise. The couple certainly would have gotten in trouble for disobeying a lawful order from a police officer and issuing a similar threat. I hope these people do get fined at the least.

I mean, come on. "Stop groping each other in public" is a pretty reasonable request.

bcguitar33

bcguitar33

Jamaica Plain, MA
January 2004

NOV 15, 2006 07:49 AM

TheGringo said:
I mean...I'm down for PDA but there IS a limit with what's cool...especially in an airplane. Besides, the same principals apply to this situation as they did back in grade school: You have to bring enough to share for everyone.


The principal at my grade school used to stop me from getting it on too!

ricosuave

ricosuave

I'm lost
September 2005

NOV 15, 2006 09:06 AM

"I'm going to give you one warning to get out of my face'?!?

Dude missed what will probably be his only opportunity of a lifetime: to have a 3-way mile-high sex romp with his girlfriend and a stew!

The proper response should have been: "Sorry Miss...(looks at name-tag) Amber. But I'm on my way to get shipped off to Iraq, and this might be my last chance. Say, Amber. Why don't you just show us to a more private place, like an empty row in the back of the aircraft, and then come join us after the movie starts."

Dude would have had bragging rights for life. No matter what happened, he'd be able to say (or think) "Oh yeah? Well I had a menage a stewardess on Delta flight 297. Scoreboard".

camalot

camalot

Canada
April 2006

NOV 15, 2006 09:17 AM

oyaji said:
It's one thing to fuck in the bathroom or in one of those new Virgin Atlantic sleeper cabin things. It's another to engage in heavy petting in full view of other passengers. I don't have much sympathy for these people. If I were sitting behind or next to them, I'd have been cheering the flight attendant for "getting in their face" and for the feds frogmarching them off the plane.



And here is where the planet falls appart. I think the biggest problem with society is that we have let ourselves be lulled into this rediculous state of mind where love is not allowed unless it's behind closed doors for fear of someone becoming offended. Seriously, what the fuck does anyone care if two people are making out? We've all done it, and will do it again. Will you go blind if you see people kissing? nope. will you become somehow traumatised by it? Nope.

Why is it accpetable to express hate and intollerance and disdain everyday, right out in the open, but it's not okay to display affection for another person?

Fucking prudes. Get over yourselves.

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

NOV 15, 2006 09:26 AM

They weren't kissing. They were engaging in oral sex and probably other overt sexual acts.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

featured interviews