867
This (rule)s
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Yes we do
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
867 points (100.0% liked)
196
16708 readers
2217 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'll bite, though not in a fully literal sense. Neither of those things is bad, if all involved and in the area are consenting adults. Observers are participants in exhibitionism and participation requires consent. This condition probably breaks the kink for some though, just as it does for those that jump in video chats with their dicks out (non-consent is likely a big part of that act).
However, I don't consent to adverts that are not directly related to intentional attempts to find a product or service and find them to be a blight on both the Internet and physical world.
This is much more of a theoretical argument than a practical one. If it's a city there will be children.
Children cannot give informed consent to sexual activities, so, that's accounted for.
What? You said fucking in public is okay as long as everyone consents, if children aren't capable of consenting, like you said, how is fucking in public okay?
In general, it is not. That's what I mean. Anyone in the potential "audience" must be capable and willing to give informed consent to participate in a sexual act. If that condition cannot be met, the act is not ok.
ETA: My intent is to apply more generalized ethical reasoning to the situation. Sex in public is not, itself, fundamentally wrong; forcing others to participate in sexual acts without their consent is. This defuses avenues for kink shaming, sex-negativity, and other similar lines of reasoning.
Semantics always annoy me unless I'm the one pointing them out
Haha! Fair!
You are right.