I feel quite confident saying, "some things shouldn't be done"
That's the crux of the matter, is it not?
There are plenty of sexual eccentricities that I find personally incomprehensible and thoroughly disgusting. Certainly I would not choose to indulge in them for my own part. There are other eccentricities that I rather enjoy.
We all declare lines of acceptability for ourselves. When we declare, though, that certain things shouldn't be done by anyone because they happen to disgust us, we tread on thin ice. Once we decide that nobody should do things that disgust us, we open up the possibility that the things we do may disgust somebody else, and that the somebody else may also claim that those things "shouldn't be done".
It is certainly true that some forms of sexual behaviour may have damaging consequences for the participants, and that such damage may spill over onto others. I don't feel, though, that the definition of what is damaging is clear or consistent enough to warrant restriction or control of what remains essentially private behaviour. I would prefer to minimize intervention in these cases, and keeping the restriction to the minimal level of requiring mutual adult consent seems the only way to go. There are things people do that make me feel like puking (though I don't generally watch them on Internet video clips, you kinky man), but I would hesitate to declare that they "shouldn't be done" unless the rights of some individual are clearly being compromised. It is simply not my place to say what should or should not be done between consenting adults.
I'm off to have new tires put on the truck; while it's up on the rack I'll have the brakes and all the underworks reviewed as well. It will probably be an all-day affair; I will try to get to the inbox on my return, or tomorrow, though tomorrow will be a sailing day with a bunch of kids.... |
