Whatever happens between consenting adults is fine.

Defining "adult" and "consent" has proven less clear-cut.

Yes, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Not domestic abuse, or torture.

If people want to beat each other up, that's fine with me. You run into the question of whether the consent is real, but provided that the people involved truly want X to happen, I don't think society should intervene.

Say what you want, I have no desire to witness public sex. And before you disagree, realize that most people aren't... shall we say... as aesthetic as you might imagine.

Well, in that case, Jacob, it is involving someone who is not a consenting adult -- you.

I agree, provided that certain activities (like eating each other) are understood to be things that people would only agree to if their mental state prevented them from giving conformed consent.

If both are mentally healthy.

And the third one is not concerned

"conformed consent" is a great phrase

but i don't think i can grant that you can't consent to being eaten. certainly it's unlikely, and i might be willing to stipulate that we can't reliably tell and thus it should not be legal. but i'd still need some convincing, even of that.

The "between" is often controversial, also. What the active consenting adults may regard as only "between" themselves can often involve others who do not consent.

'Whatever' is just too general.

But, I suppose, that if all people involved to even the slightest extent consented, it would be okay.

If all people involved to even the slightest extent consented, is pretty much equivalent to the whole of society agreeing, which is a much stricter rule for laws than we currently have.

sorry, meta, i shoud have given you a heads-up -- but since you posted it elsewhere, i claimed a place to discuss it.