Why you should be considered what consenting adults do in privacy

One of the defenses for extremely dangerous sexual behaviors like promiscuity and anal sex is that it shouldn't matter to anyone else what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

This reasoning has a major flaw:

Those consenting adults can and do spread countless ST Ds and other diseases to each other and to everyone else they have sex with, or in the case of diseases like scarlet fever, simply breathe the same air. What happens when they have sex with someone you care about, and he/she dies as a result?

edited 17th Jul '11 1:42:56 AM by Zenoseiya

Plenty of things are dangerous: a lot of sports, driving a car, drinking, heterosexual sex ... I don't see why gay sex deserves to be treated differently, unless you want to go out and legislate everything that could potentially result in harm to a loved one.

If someone knowingly does something dangerous and dies as a result: tough beans. Yes, they probably didn't deserve it, yes it's sad, especially for their friends and family and those they were providing to. Living with an occasional case like that is still better than trying to build a zero-risk society.

edited 17th Jul '11 1:47:28 AM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Not only that, but it's 2011, not the Iron Age Middle East. We have things like condoms, proper hygiene and running water — STDs and diseases like cholera and typhoid are easy to avoid. Obviously, not everyone is going to be conscientious about the condoms, but that's what education campaigns are for.

edited 17th Jul '11 1:49:18 AM by lee4hmz

Then..you probably should have practiced safer sex, and should be pissed at your schools and government and your society in general for being so repressed and terrified of sex that proper sex ed isnt common?

Skipping over the obvious flaws in your reasoning, what's your proposed solution Zenoseiya?

I for one wouldn't be opposed to the death penalty for people who know they have AIDS, but hide that fact, have unprotected sex, and infect someone else (homosexual or heterosexual).

(Not that I think it's necessarily the best policy, but it could work. I don't think it's really needed in the US, it seems the epidemic has been mostly contained. In some parts of Africa, though ...)

I'd consider that kind of punishment too easy for people to manipulate for their own gains. Better to mass-donate condoms, IMO.

I don't really see who could benefit from that.

Thread Hop: You're speaking my mind OP.

For the most part I don't care what goes on behind close door and neither should the state, but if something is deem harmful to the general public at large, then why should the law have to tolerate that sort of shit?

Simple - someone kills someone I care about, I kill them, right back. With a 12 gauge shotgun.

Tell you what, Zenoseiya, why don't you go and live on a tiny little island all on your own? Then the nasty people enjoying themselves won't upset you.

My aunt once told me a story.

When she was living in northern Ireland in the late 70s they were two women who shared a flat together opposite to her. Despite being fairly young and attractive women they didn't show any interest in the local men and kept mainly to themselves.

Anyway one day the police got a call from some busybody from the local church and the cops came and actually arrested these two women for actives that were seen as "socially harmful" despite only taking place in private between consenting adults.

Building and supply bombs for the I.R.A.

listen, I'm all for personal freedom, but there are times when saying 'consenting adults in privacy of their own homes' is not a good enough defence.

edited 17th Jul '11 2:58:29 AM by joeyjojo

Ok, this has has turned just stupid.

Locking now.

Do not make another thread like this one.