Sexual expression: your opinion

An interesting point of view.1- What about when sex violates other existing laws such the sexual cannibalism that occurred in Germany in 2002?(Cannibalism - Wikipedia)Both were consenting people, do you think the government was wrong to prosecute Armin M. Meiwes?2- What about BDSM? If a male 'master' beats his female (consenting) 'slave' so badly it leaves bruises, burns, etc, should the government prosecute him for physical abuse?3- If you had a friend, family member, or co-worker who appeared to be the victim of physical abuse - black eyes, broken nose, burn marks, yet she told you in confidence that it was OK because she consented to it and it was part of her sexual expression would you then consider it none of your business?

Snuff flicks. Care to refine that statement a bit?

1- Why do you doubt consent in the Arwin cannibalism case? The partner (Brandes) videotaped his consent. He even tried to participate in eating his own flesh.2- Not sure if this answers my BDSM question. Are you saying you don't think masochists can give consent?If you agree that masochists are consenting partners, then do you still think physical torture or abuse if involved as part of the sexual act is no-one's business but the participants involved?3- What about the Sharon Lopatka 'consentual homicide' case? (Killing of Sharon Lopatka - Wikipedia) She kept soliciting men to torture and kill her as part of her sexual fantasy until she found one. Was it right for the govt to prosecute her partner even though she consented to this sexual act?

Hey man. How's tricks in tulipville? I've been trying to finish my friggin book, sell a house, etc. etc. This statement is clearly not true as performers in all sorts of exhibitions hurt themselves. Athletes injure themselves. Stuntmen die performing dangerous stunts.Assuming we restrict your statement to sex acts, sex performers can injure themselves physcially, and can contract include STDs or other diseases (hep B & C) which can harm them or even kill them(your namesake John Holmes for example). The exhibitor is killed. In BDSM the exibitor is physically beaten or tortured in a manner that causes pain, leaves bruises, burns, etc. I think that constitutes physical harm. You say tomato. Surely we can both agree that one person's 'violence' is another persons sex fantasy? If we do, I don't see how you can just dismiss snuff films as not harming the exhibitor.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I think some people need violence or at least use violence to heighten their sex - e.g. BDSM.How can we say killing, which is the ultimate violence, is divorced from any sexual feelings? If it heightens sexual arousal, it's sexual to that person.Otherwise we could make the statements:Pissing is never a sexual act. (urolagnia)
Bouncing on balloons is never a sexual act. (poppers, non-poppers, and semi-poppers).
Shoe fetishism is never a sexual act.I think if it turns someone on, it can be a sexual act. If people are buying videos of it, watching it, or participating in it to help achieve or enhance their climax, then it's sexual. I think that include violence, even killing.