What sexual acts between consenting adults should be illegal?

Great Debates
1

In discussions of sexual politics, many people will often express an opinion to the effect of, “If sex is between consenting adults, then it’s nobody else’s business.” This has often been used in defense of LGBT sex, etc., and it’s a viewpoint more likely to be expressed by the left wing than the right wing. After all, there was a time when homosexuality between consenting adults was illegal - and in fact still is, in certain Muslim countries.

But many people - liberals and libertarians included - don’t actually support that opinion, strictly speaking. Many if not most people hold the opinion that certain sexual acts should indeed be or remain illegal even if it is between consenting adults. Take incest between consenting adults, for example.

There are also people who hold the opinion that it should be illegal for consenting adults to have sex if one or both of them are mentally handicapped - the argument being that a person who is mentally handicapped is incapable of informed/comprehending consent. Also, if I recall right, one of Canada’s laws - something to the effect that people cannot consent to an assault that causes physical harm - has the effect of outlawing a lot of consensual BDSM activities.

Those are the three examples that come to mind. Anybody else think of other examples?
(Note: I’m not saying these sexual activities should be legal. I am simply putting forth for debate just what precisely, logically speaking, makes certain sexual acts between consenting adults permissible and certain other sexual acts between consenting adults not permissible.)

2

In a society that views assisted suicide which obviously results in death acceptable among the left wing what sex act results in more harm than death? If one can choose an act that leads to no life why should any act less extreme be sanctioned?

3

As long as everyone concerned is competent to make informed consent . . . of legal age and aware of the possible consequences . . . it’s truly none of anyone else’s business. This includes BDSM activities, incest between adults, and mentally handicapped couples.

4

You may not have ever learned the slightest thing about the physician-assisted suicide movement, in which case it’ll be news to you that most folks who support it believe there should be limits on it: physicians should assist folks in suicide only when the person is suffering a terminal illness and is in severe suffering, for example. I’m unaware of any leftist (not saying they don’t exist, just that they’re extremely rare) who supports any suicide at any time.

So, here are my rules for sex acts that should be legal:

  1. Everyone involved is an adult fully capable of giving informed consent at the moment of sex.
  2. Everyone involved has freely given fully informed consent at the moment of sex (this means no coercion).
  3. Nobody involved will be permanently and seriously injured by the experience. If you want to incorporate branding into your sex play, that’s between you and your cattle; but if you want to start amputating, nope.
5

I have a friend who once said that “Whatever it is, somewhere, it’s someone’s fetish.” If we accept that as true, than virtually anything can be a sex act. For some people, food is part of sex. That’s fine. But there are people who want to eat human flesh, and they want to do it to satisfy a sexual urge.

I’m trying to come up with some elegant way of saying that if it isn’t illegal as a non-sex act, then it shouldn’t be illegal to do it to get off. And if its only purpose is to be a sex act, then that’s OK too. I can’t quite get my slogan together. I also can’t think of anything that is a sex act and only a sex act (wait, I thought of one-- see below), like missionary position intercourse, that could possibly be objectionable to anyone for some reason other than a strictly moral objection. There are lots of reasons to object to cannibalism, even when the person who proffers the delicacy does so voluntarily, the main one being that we don’t let people traffic in body parts to save lives, so we’re not going to let them do it for lesser purposes, like orgasms; and there’s no good way to guarantee the safety of either party (the donor could have something like hepatitis or a prion disease and not know it, and obviously, the safety of the donor is dicey).

So, my take is that anything that is otherwise legal can be incorporated (pun intended) into a sex act. Things that are illegal in and of themselves cannot be. If you think the underlying law is wrong (eg: dammit, I ought to be able to shoot smack, and have sex), take it up with your legislators.

RE: mentally handicapped and sex. The key is consent. Some mentally handicapped people can consent, and some cannot. I have worked with this population extensively. Some of them live very independent lives, some are still under their parents’ guardianship in their 40s. Some marry, and even raise children. Some have sex expressly to get pregnant. Some don’t want to have children, and use birth control responsibly. Some are irresponsible, but that just makes them a lot like the rest of the population.

Most have normal sexual urges; some, maybe 15% of the population, don’t develop a libido. That’s a lot higher than the proportion of the non-MH population who is asexual, but it still leaves a substantial number who want to have normal sex lives. Either they are independent, in which case, they are able to consent, or they have a guardian, who can give them permission to consent, and that can be blanket permission, or permission within a specific relationship.

If you describe the mentally handicapped as belonging to the population of consenting adults, and then say they cannot consent, this is simply an error. Some of them do belong in the population of consenting adults, and sex for them is legal, and IMO, perfectly fine. Some do not belong in that population, and are taken advantage of. This is a crime. Occasionally, two people who are both legally deemed unable to consent find each other. This may become an occasion where consent is given by guardians for a specific relationship, or it may become an issue where they have to be kept apart. It is a case-by-case sort of thing.

Incest is illegal in some states. It is, now that I think about it, a sex act that is in and of itself illegal in some places. It may not even be states, but jurisdictions. Personally, I think it’s none of my business if the parties involved are adults. Also, FWIW, in-breeding problems arise in isolated populations, where everyone is at least a third cousin. If a brother and sister whose own parents have widely diverse genetic backgrounds conceive a child, that child actually has a pretty good chance of being perfectly normal and healthy. All the same, it’s probably not a bad idea to counsel close relatives not to have children, and marriage incest laws should probably stay as they are. They won’t prevent all incestually conceived children, but they probably keep the numbers lower than if brother/sister & parent/child marriages were legal. But incest in and of itself, between (or even among) adults, should not be illegal.

6

Is not a logical outcome from what is typically thought of as right wing. Again if one can choose to end ones life why the moral prohibition for an act that falls short of death? Why can’t someone choose a non life threatening disfigurement if that helps with sexual gratification?

7

Is this actually true, and if so, do they allow boxing and wrestling, or contact sports in general?

8

That thing where two guys ate one of the guys penis (and then some of the rest of him as well after killing him) should be out.

9

If sadomasochistic sex is illegal here, I haven’t heard about it. And yes, we do have contact sports here. Hockey comes to mind.

10

Yep, that was pretty much my point - I can’t imagine a law that could outlaw one on the basis of ‘consenting to assault’, without outlawing the other.

11

There are a couple of paragraphs here in this articlethat deal with the topic of BDSM in Canada - mentioning the Canadian Supreme Court and its clarification of the law - you’ll have to scroll down a bit to find it.

12

I call bullshit on that claim.

13

A lot of people object to children being born to close relatives, and can’t fathom a relation where children aren’t an eventual goal.

14

So they’re ok with two brothers having sex . . . or elderly siblings?

15

Well, any sexual activity between humans and adult animals should definitely be forbidden.

IIRC, there’s someone on the Dope who knew the victim.

16

“A lot of people” is not the same as “most liberals and libertarians”. Why would you think it was?

17

It’s certainly fine with me!

Incestuous relationships between people who could have children together does create a problem. Maybe future generations have a right to good gene pools, and sibling progeny are denied that right. But this is also a bit scary and complicated, because there’s logic here that endorses eugenics too. I certainly think there’s nothing wrong with non procreative sex between people who can truly consent, but I also see that genes matter and we each get ours through somebody else’s activities, and that’s where it gets iffy.

Does anybody know how real a problem it is to have siblings or close relatives as parents? It’s not obvious to me why we should expect it to be a genetic problem, it just seems to be out there as common knowledge. I guess the issue is that it would increase the probability of getting two of a recessive problem gene?

18

Hi this my first post, I am a Aussie, our Abos had laws before Cook came hear and the law was all about the health and survival of the tribes first and foremost and anything that threatened that was dealt with.
No playing up sexually at all or it was death and the tribe picked who was going to breed with who for life.
They could not support a inbreed and such a one would never survive not to mention such a one would be rejected as just totally useless.

The Hebrews had Laws to protect the tribe as well and dealt with things somewhat in the same way.

All nations fail who are degenerates and that’s a proven fact of history and once a idol or such as the degenerates rule it’s just like a cancer.:wink:

19

I don’t think you should have to be terminal to have assisted suicide. I’m closer to “at any time” than that.

20

That makes sense. (To be clear, I’m talking to jsgoddess, not the previous poster). Certainly there are people who support access to suicide for folks who aren’t mentally ill. octopus seems to be saying that the left is all, “You want to commit suicide? No problem, we won’t ask why, here’s some drugs, buhbye!” That’s the position that I’m not familiar with leftists having.