mattskramer
Senior Member
It still does not bother me. He may be destroying himself but those are his choices.
Mutual consent is not involved when the activity is spousal assault and battery. Such crimes fall under the authority of the police. Naturally an injured or scared individual may come to you for a variety of reasons and want your help. It becomes your business to the extent that you want to help someone. A street person walked up to my car while I was waiting for a stoplight. He asked for some change. I declined to help him.
How I treat you naturally becomes your business. Again, though, if my wife and I are engaged in activity that does not involve mutual consent, people (particularly the police) should become involved.
The above post still does not give concrete and specific information.
The above post makes a good point. People can't be completely secluded from the consequences of the activities of others. Still, having oral sex indoors with the shades pulled down is different from living in a rat infested home. Similarly, one can't live in a bubble protected from air pollution created by drivers and smokers. Are we to outlaw automobiles because I ride a bicycle and don't want to breath toxic exhaust? As I often say, issues are relative and a balance is drawn.
Okay. Some activity, as I mentioned, likely affects the health of others. The question becomes where to draw the line. I'm a little bit concerned with the comment about things being for the well being of society. Are we to outlaw all things that don't benefit society?
If someone drinks and drives and causes a wreck, permanently injuring someone as a result, I think that there should be a severe penalty. I'd even recommend that he be prevented from ever driving again. I don't like the "pass the buck mentality. A bar is not to blame for a drunk driving accident. A store that sells porn is not to blame if someone rapes someone after reading a porn magazine. A gun shop is not to blame when one buys a gun and uses it to shoot an innocent person. The blame falls directly on the individual who actually committed the crime.
In summary, my question remains unanswered. In and of itself, oral and anal sex between married couples does not affect society. Other activities might (smoking, driving, etc.) but not oral sex between consenting married couples.
Since my socio-political position is similar to that of a moderate social Libertarian, in answer to your question, I think that it is amoral for married couples to engage in oral or anal sex. For the most part, informed mutually consenting adults should be free to do as they please and face the consequences (risks and rewards) of their actions.
