- In public
- Between a superior and a subordinate
- Between people whom there is a relationship of advice, like Doctors, lawyers, accountants
- In the missionary position…
The “sex act” itself shouldn’t be illegal … however … “It was an act of sex” shouldn’t be used as a defense for any other crime. If the partner’s Rolex winds up in the others pocket, well that’s robbery, not sex.
That’s not the best example, but you get the idea …
Me, but I’ve been clinically depressed my whole life and think that suicide should be my right. Laws that prosecute people because they are so miserable and hopeless that they want to take their own life are stupid.
HOWEVER, assisted suicide is something that should only be done by a doctor, not a sexual partner. Killing someone is too much of a burden to be placed on someone who is not a professional and hasn’t the training or support (ethics, pain management, and their own support network to deal with their own emotional state).
Perhaps I used too broad of a brush. But I do believe that one of the profound differences between the left and the right, at least the religious right, is the position held on the idea of assisted suicide or euthanasia.
With regards to sexual acts. If it’s overly judgmental and out of bounds for society to dictate and enforce standards of behavior for acts that can knowingly cause severe harm how does one argue to draw the line at a point he finds personally distasteful in a logically consistent manner? For example, is it currently illegal to knowingly have unprotected sex with someone with AIDS?
What’s wrong with all those?
Any sexual act that involves Dennis Rodman.
Not sure whether I’m understanding you. Are you saying that knowingly having unprotected sex with a person with AIDS is “personally distasteful” to you, and therefore should be illegal?
No. I’m wondering how one can justify taking a stance to make illegal a sexual act that results in permanent harm to a consensual participant. What set of principles gives society that right?
You aren’t allowed to seriously harm other people in general. Exceptions are made in certain regulated activities, surgeons can cut open a person with a scalpel and boxers can engage in a dangerous sport as examples. Those are all regulated activities which would be crimes if performed outside the regulations. Communication of disease between consenting parties is not one of those things as far as I know though.
A link to the column is in the spoiler boxHere’s a link to the column
And just in case you’re a total idiot, this column started by a Doper who knew the man who was voluntarily cannibalized is extremely TMI disturbing make-you-barf reading. So be warned.
Any sex act that is done in such a way as to involve others as unwilling participants (i.e. public sex) is a major one.
Incest is extremely taboo, and should probably be societally discouraged/stigmatized, but I’m not sure that it being punishable by prison makes any sense at all.
I’m conflicted about superior/subordinate and doctor/lawyer-patient/client type things. The potential for coercion is there, but I think that if the relationship starts this way but then the superior moves laterally or refers the patient/client (with alacrity), again, I don’t see that as a criminal problem.
If a mentally handicapped person is competent enough to get/use contraception, I think they should be considered competent to consent to sex.
Oh dear me, this is quite the first post. Uh, welcome? Placing the group ahead of the interests of the individuals that comprise it is indeed a characteristic of traditional societies whose survival is threatened. Of course, the interests of the group so often corresponded to the interests of the most powerful members of the group, generally the older men. Since the interests of people like me–that would be female–were so often the first to be sacrificed, let me say a hearty fuck no to your idea of a well constructed society. By the way, the degenerate nations seem to be doing rather well.
On to saner matters. Among consenting adults, I don’t think sex is the business of the state. I’m willing to concede that penis-eating might be an exception. There may be a general societal interest in a healthy gene pool, but we don’t prevent people who probably shouldn’t reproduce from doing so and I don’t see how the case of close relatives would be different. Yucky, perhaps, but many things are yucky that shouldn’t be illegal.
There are also people (like myself) who don’t support an incest relationship between two people when person A had authority over person B when person B was a child. Mother/son, uncle/niece, or even a significantly older sibling/younger sibling (for the sake of argument, lets say 8 years age difference). Too much room for grooming abuse.
I wonder what is the the most violent thing to which a person can legally consent? I wonder if I really want to know.
“My safe word is ‘Ow.’”
At first glance I thought the answer was clearly, “none, two consenting adults can do whatever they want”, but on reflection I guess there could be situations where that shouldn’t be the case. Some people are born not wanting certain limbs attached to them, to have them removed they must go through a lengthy psychiatric evaluation. I guess two consenting adults could agree to do some pretty messed up permanently harmful activities where their mental faculties would immediately be called into question and the performers may not be allowed ‘we both consented’ as a defense.
How about this?
Anything done in private that does not result in permanent damage should be legal.
Speaking about incest specifically, I think that it should be legal. However, I would be willing to go along with a legal requirement that if children are a possibility from the union, they should either get tested for bad genes, OR one of the two should be sterilized.
These aren’t actually illegal; they are just considered to be extremely unprofessional. The people won’t be arrested but they may be sanctioned or fired by their employer or professional regulating organization.
This may be way too nitpicky, but you can do some awful, awful harm to people that isn’t actually permanent…and, on the other hand, what about minor permanent harm, such as scarring, branding, cutting, etc.?
I agree with the principle, I think, but there’s some fuzz around the boundaries of the Venn Diagram.
ETA: Another scary example: Risky behavior, such as near-suffocation. I don’t actually want to ban it, but…if it goes wrong, should it be punishable? Could a wrongful death lawsuit follow? Some things are legal, but still legally actionable.
Health is the business of the State both mind and body and if it was not, we would all be in a mess.
Degenerates are harmful to a nation, you don’t want your children educated or to make a safe State where people are up right and honest diligent and respectful.
What about a couple that might have a Down’s Syndrome or autistic child?