[ButlerianJihad]

> If society wasn't so puritanical there would be no harm from it.

What is "puritanical" then, in your opinion? Is it being uptight? Do we abandon our efforts to uphold modesty and dignity of the human person? Do we stop teaching our children about boundaries and propriety, and their responsibilities as they mature? How should boys and young men conduct themselves around women? Should they learn about the concept of consent, and respecting others' wishes?

[lo_zamoyski]

Those who immediately jump to accusations of "puritanical!" at the mere criticism of any sexual indiscretion are usually sexual deviants of some kind. They may not necessarily partake in any actual sexual activity (they probably usually don't, hence the desire to lower the baseline of acceptable behavior), and they aren't fit for relationships as those require respect. Porn brain comes to mind.

It's time we got back to sexual ethics, as it is absolutely not the case that anything goes or even that "consent" suffices to make something okay.

[ivell]

In this particular type of abuse, the issue arises because humans value hiding reproductive organs. A similar social constraint applies to women's virginity. So if the society was not so focused on hiding reproductive organs, this particular issue would not have arisen. Nobody laughs at naked hands. It is just expected to be bared and if you put on gloves it is because of weather and not usually to hide hands.

[dec0dedab0de]

I was just pointing out the poor logic of the comment I was replying to.

[lostmsu]

Draw the boundary at physical abuse.