Fair point, but it must be added that it can be valid only as long as one understands and accepts the risks and possible consequences (including the social factors), and doesn't spread it further to anyone without their full awareness and explicit consent.
Ah, I understand. I disagree with the analogy then. If the two consenting adults are not harming each other they can still be a liability to other people. Risk can be introduced indirectly even if no individual is directly harmed. How can you adjust your analogy to account for that?
Good faith here, but where were the absolutes? I said that if everyone knows and everyone consents then it’s okay. That’s not really absolute, that’s precisely qualified. Is there a culture in which everyone could both know about it and consent to it and it would still be morally wrong?
This seems like a fair point. It's often argued when discussing sex that legitimate consent can't be given by someone at a significant power disadvantage. Employee vs. boss, model vs. talent scout, legal-aged student vs. lecturer. Surely the same should apply for any other intrusion?
only thing that actually speaks against it is being associated with [godwin's law]. As far as everyone involved is consenting this shouldn't be an issue.
Even if I don't consent to this, it is sufficient that some of my relatives do so to expose information about me. Thus individuals should not even be allowed to give such general consent, as they cannot possible give consent only for themselves.
Self- or consensual "harm" should be excluded from anybody else's business. Most sexual activity fits under this category. It's not a difficult problem.
reply