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.

[–] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is much more of a theoretical argument than a practical one. If it's a city there will be children.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Children cannot give informed consent to sexual activities, so, that's accounted for.

[–] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Semantics always annoy me unless I'm the one pointing them out

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Haha! Fair!

[–] ProfessorPuzzleCode@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You are right.