Should sex theme park in China exist?

China's first sex theme park is slated to open in October. Objections are raised, as are defences. We examine the arguments.

Source: The Straits Times, 16/5/9, p.C8
Headline: Chinese sex theme park exposes raw nerve

Quote1
BEIJING: A sex theme park in south-west China ... exhibits sculptures of the human body and of giant genitals, as well as boasts a sex technique workshop. ... "Love Land", billed as China's first-ever sex theme park, is slated to open in Chongqing municipality in October, but detractors hope the project will never see the light of day. ...

Comment1
This theme park is the point of controversy. Should it exist?

Quote2
Manager Lu Xiaoqing said: "We are building the park for the good of the public ... to help adults enjoy a harmonious sex life. Sex is a taboo subject in China, but people really need to have more access to information about it."

Comment2
We have here an appeal to consequences, a teleological approach. Two benefits are listed:
1. Help adults enjoy a harmonious sex life
2. Give people access to information about sex

Quote3
The announcement of the park's official opening elicited numerous comments from Internet users, with the majority voicing opposition to it.

Comment3
Acquiescing to a majority opinion commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the gallery). The majority can be wrong (eg. at one time most people believed slavery was alright.) We must reject this argument.

Quote4
"These vulgar sex instalments will only make people sick," one netizen wrote. "These things are too exposed," Chongqing police officer Liu Daiwei said. "I will feel uncomfortable to look at them when other people are around." -- AFP, China Daily, Asia News Network.

Comment4
The appeal to consequences continues, this time harmful consequences:
3. Sickens some people

We can now collate the consequences:
1. Help adults enjoy a harmonious sex life
2. Give people access to information about sex
3. Sickens some people

Finally, we ask if there is a nett benefit or nett harm. If there is a nett benefit, the theme park should exist. If there is a nett harm, the theme park should not exist.

END