Next sexual taboo to be lifted?

tessaesque said:

I think we have to set a standard. If sound-minded consenting adults wish to enter into contract with one another, they should be allowed to do so. That makes it simple and eradicates much of the rest of the issue.

As another stated, animals, children, corpses...they can't consent to enter into contract.

Click to expand...

If you wanna go the legalistic route, I'm sure we the majority can find a way to legalize murder so we can kill the minority so they won't bother us anymore.

Cephus said:

But you're no longer talking about polygamy then, you're doing serial monogamy. Besides, it doesn't change anything, people together longer than 7 years are automatically common law married in most states. There are still custody issues and support issues even if you try to sidestep the legal problems.

Click to expand...

If your thinking something has to be recognized by the government to exist you are correct. You are actually claiming that polygamy doesn't exist in the US. My view is that polygamy is a description of how people are behaving and it functionally exists in the US and other places. And, serial monogamy isn't accurate or even close since in monogamy there isn't the expectation of non-exclusivity. Where in polygamy there is the expectation of non-exclusivity and what the rules for that are and they are agreed to.

Matt Foley said:

If you wanna go the legalistic route, I'm sure we the majority can find a way to legalize murder so we can kill the minority so they won't bother us anymore.

Click to expand...

Illogical post is illogical.
What the hell is the parallel you're trying to create here?

THe next sexual taboo to be lifted?

I don't know -- sex with Serbs, maybe?

You're right that 50 years ago few would predict some of those would be legal and acceptable (i do not agree that most people celebrate adultery). Obviously the key factor is they're between consenting adults, so from that basis we can exclude sex with animals. To make it legal would be to *remove* animal rights.

I believe there are states with "Romeo and Juliet" laws. Let's be real for a second. The average age to lose virginity is what 15-16, while in states like CA that's illegal even if both are that age. I think there's a lot more grey area when one is 18 and the other 16, than one is 40 and the other 16. The potential for harm is much greater in the latter case. Such laws might be changed, if and when we no longer have a prison industrial complex.

Necrophilia evokes the same kind of repulsion as the military pissing on the Afghan corpse did. The corpse might not care, atheists just see it as a dead body, but even if you don't believe it's a sacred trust to properly bury and not literally **** them, who here wants their body to be raped? The wishes of the recently diseased should be honored, within reason.

Though I think the OP is a one-trick-pony, I thought I might offer my two cents. The reason divorce, adultery, bisexuality, homosexuality, and polygamy are or will soon be overlooked is that objectively they are not harmful to the individual. It is about consenting adults making decisions about how to live their lives. Necrophilia, bestiality, and the like go along with pedophilia and rape. They are and will continue to be shunned because they have objective harm.

I think out of the list, polygamy is the most likely to see legal change. I don't think polygamy or group marriages will see the exact same marriages as two people agreements are (unless enough people are frickin' insane enough to cause us a ton of legal issues). I do think that we may end up with some state (probably somewhere in the West to MidWest) will propose an idea of granting certain legal family rights to 2nd, 3rd, etc. spouses. I don't see this happening in the near future.

As for necrophilia, although I see the consent/prior consent argument and don't see this quite on the same plate as zoophilia or sex with teens, I also don't see this coming to the point where we allow it, even if prior consent is given. Not in the next few decades, at the very least. Even psychologists classify this as an actual mental problem because it is not promoting healthy relationships (obviously a person cannot have a "healthy" relationship with a corpse) and eventually the corpse that may have given consent prior to death will decay to the point where sex would be unhealthy for the living person. So that would mean finding another corpse to do it with. Not exactly a healthy way to start a relationship.

As for zoophilia and having sex with teens, it will go back to consent. If we are just talking about sex, they cannot give consent to these acts. We have determined that although we do not give animals or teens full rights, they also cannot be used for the pure sexual pleasure of an adult. In fact, I'm willing to bet that we might see a change in a further direction on teen marriages at least to a point where marriage is only allowed at an age of 18 or even older in most if not all states (I actually hope this happens, but it is also seeing support in courts and some laws that have been changed to reflect this).

Incest is an area that could see some changes on what is considered incest but not likely to be legally allowed as a whole due to the genetic problems issue that comes from generational incest and the undue influence issue that is present in many of the incest cases, particularly when talking about a major age difference between the two involved or older sibling and younger sibling. I don't see this "taboo" getting a strong following that will lead to massive acceptance.

Like others I think some important ones were left off the list like public nudity and prostitution. I see both of these possibly changing, maybe in the next couple of decades. Prostitution may see a push to legalize and regulate it, especially on a state level in certain additional states. Public nudity policies could change as a result of either more public acceptance or court cases on Constitutionality of such laws or the punishments that some enforcement carries.

I checked other, none of the above......

I wasn't aware of adultery ever being okay. It's grounds for divorce. It constitutes breach of the marriage contract. But punishing people for it, criminally, that hasn't worked out so well. Especially considering how unequal the punishment so often was.