-4
$\begingroup$

There is only one country on Earth, Oceania. It's a totalitarian society ruled by a person with title "the Greatest Of Dictators" (G.O.D. for short). There are videocameras everywhere, citizens of Oceania have zero privacy. Gender of all citizens is known, every citizen is either a male or a female. Sexual orientation of all citizens is also known, sex happens only if all sides want to have sex with each other.

One day G.O.D., who always was anti-sex, finally decided to ban sex for their citizens. The will of G.O.D. was following:

1.Every citizen of Oceania is forbidden from having sex with a non-citizen.

2.Every female citizen of Oceania is forbidden from having sex with anybody.

3.Every homosexual citizen of Oceania is forbidden from having sex with anybody.

Then G.O.D. gone to sleep rejoicing that all sex was banned. The next day G.O.D. woke up and requested information about enforcement of new rules. As it turned out there were no violatators, but some sly citizens were still able to have sex legally because there was a loophole in new rules. What was this loophole?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Moderatorial note: Please be cautious in replying to this question. The Stack Exchange acceptable use policy forbids "sexually explicit material" and the Code of Conduct forbids "sexually suggestive remarks". I don't think these are intended to forbid questions (e.g., puzzles here, advice-solicitation over on Interpersonal Skills, religious ethics questions on religious sites) that merely mention sex, but please be extra-careful to avoid writing things that might (for instance) upset more sensitive readers. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan ♦
    Apr 5, 2020 at 11:58
  • $\begingroup$ @GarethMcCaughan I think some people read only the first sentence of your comment and started downvoting my post as rule-breaking. Probably you should reword it in such way that it would be obvious from first glance that my post is okay. $\endgroup$
    – KarmaPeasant
    Apr 5, 2020 at 12:24
  • $\begingroup$ That wasn't my intention. For what it's worth, I don't think I believe your theory; I think it's more likely that some people dislike seeing stuff about sex regardless of what I might write about it. I'll think about whether I can find an appropriate rewording that isn't prone to misinterpretation. $\endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan ♦
    Apr 5, 2020 at 13:24
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I edited my comment substantially and I think it's less liable to be misinterpreted now. (This does mean that the people who upvoted it now have their upvotes attached to entirely different text; too bad; I think the new version is better.) $\endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan ♦
    Apr 5, 2020 at 13:49
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I downvoted, because lawyering and loophole finding aren't fun if you have to find a specific, purposely included loophole. $\endgroup$
    – Bass
    Apr 5, 2020 at 14:42

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

One obvious loophole which may or may not be the intended one:

the rules say nothing about bisexuals. So if two bisexual Oceanian men feel like getting it on and do so, there is nothing in the rules to stop them.

A related loophole which is less likely to be intended:

any sexual act involving only one person is permitted by the rules. Whether any such acts count as "having sex" is maybe arguable, but there are some cases that seem pretty plausible to me.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The first one is correct. The second one doesn't have make sense from point of view of conventional definition of sex. $\endgroup$
    – KarmaPeasant
    Apr 5, 2020 at 12:00
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I did say it's "maybe arguable". But consider the following examples, rot13'ed not for fear of spoilers but because some might prefer not to read them. rot13("Rirel avtug, K unf frk jvgu uvf vasyngnoyr frk qbyy." "L unq frk jvgu n qbaxrl." "Nppbeqvat gb gur obbx bs Trarfvf, fbzr natryf unq frk jvgu uhzna jbzra naq gur bssfcevat jrer tvnagf.") On reflection, though, maybe those are all forbidden by rule 1. $\endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan ♦
    Apr 5, 2020 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ The other obvious case is suggested by a famous quotation from Woody Allen: rot13("Qba'g xabpx znfgheongvba. Vg'f frk jvgu fbzrbar V ybir.") That one isn't forbidden by any of the three rules, but of course the Woody Allen line is funny mostly because rot13(zbfg bs hf jbhyqa'g pbafvqre gung gb or "univat frk" va nal hfrshy frafr). $\endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan ♦
    Apr 5, 2020 at 13:32
6
$\begingroup$

Quite simple, really:

Everyone renounced their citizenship. As such, only the first law applies - and only if their partner has not also renounced their citizenship

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not what I intended, but I'm willing to accept this one too because it makes sense. $\endgroup$
    – KarmaPeasant
    Apr 6, 2020 at 1:47
2
$\begingroup$

It can happen if

the relation "A has sex with B" is treated as non-symmetric, i.e. if A has sex with B, it does not imply that B has sex with A (note that "B wants to have sex with A" != "B has sex with A"). So, for example, let A (Andy) be heterosexual male and B (Beth) be heterosexual female. Andy has sex with Beth, but not vice versa, so there is technically no violation.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ rot13(Ab, gur eryngvba vf nffhzrq gb or flzzrgevpny.) $\endgroup$
    – KarmaPeasant
    Apr 5, 2020 at 13:35
1
$\begingroup$

Besides the preexisting answers, it can be done if

two heterosexual men agree to have sex.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ rot13(Ohg jbhyq gurl ernyyl or urgrebfrkhny znyrf vs gurl ibyhagnel nterrq gb unir frk jvgu rnpu bgure?) $\endgroup$
    – KarmaPeasant
    Apr 5, 2020 at 17:40
  • $\begingroup$ @user161005, sure, they could be. Have you never seen anyone do something against his nature? $\endgroup$
    – msh210
    Apr 5, 2020 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ rot13(Ohg vg'f abg whfg gurve angher, vg'f gurve zbgvingvba. Jul jbhyq lbh qb fbzrguvat gung lbh qvfyvxr vs lbh pna ibyhagnel bcg bhg bs qbvat vg?) O_o $\endgroup$
    – KarmaPeasant
    Apr 5, 2020 at 17:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.