Shared publicly  - 
Is there anything which should be forbidden between consenting adults behind closed doors? Let people do what they want.
Can anybody out there think of anything which should be forbidden between consenting adults behind closed doors?
Hugh Stone III's profile photoPeter Morris's profile photoMini UN's profile photoMike Gem's profile photo
agreed! love your activism and the topics you choose to address!
It is wrong if they are committed to someone else by marriage.
Anything illegal. Just because you put it behind closed doors it doesn't make it right. How about plotting, fraud, incest, cruelty etc? 
Hey Richard... how about Sex in an aeroplane toilet???
Anything two consenting adults that agree to engage in activities that don't by law harm anyone else. That's why for me it was important when president Obama shared his support for gay parents for me it showed that the conversation is now a national issue and I agree people should be allowed to live. Who am I to judge.
no not a single thing....... if 2 consenting adults are happy in what they are doing, of what concern is it to ANYONE ELSE.......people and society should live and let live... but unfortunately people can not keep there bleeding nose out of other peoples affairs ......... time that people took a long hard look at them self in the mirror before pointing the finger at others..... judge your self before judging others.......
Dentro da sua propia casa, você tem que ser livre para fazer oque achar certo !
+Agrey Ongaro murder is not between consenting adults. If it is, it is assisted suicide, not murder.

And +Jake Coventry there are plenty of illegal things which are not unethical or immoral. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should be, which I believe is part of +Richard Branson 's point. If you and everyone else involved has consented to something, provided no one was coerced, and if you are not hurting others, then why should anyone care what it is that you are doing? It isn't anyone else's business.
Mr Thomas I am assuming you are not gay. Most gay people feel that he is the best person to bring it up considering he is the first black president. The gay society has been under attack for years from all sides military,business,education,bullying this is something the black community knows exactly how it feels to be treat in the same way if not worse. I think it comes from a place you can't possible even comprehend.
+Feisal Kamil spousal abuse is not between two consenting adults. Not without coercion anyway.
As long as it not harming some one else. 
I think there are limits.  Torture would be one and I can think of lots of others
Going to the bathroom with the door open
No, but with many caveats:
1. It does not harm or effect anyone else, either now or later.
2. It stays behind closed doors between them and not broadcast or politicized in order to try and make it "mainstream" and "accepted".
3. It is legal in society. Laws and morals are put there to not only protect others, but sometimes protect us from ourselves. Balance is the key, and this like many things is debatable.
What if I enjoy being tortured? Who are you to tell me I can't enjoy that?
Consenting is the difficult part. For example in what +Feisal Kamil mentioned victim could be forced/intimidated/coerced into 'consent' ...
Mrs Wojcicki I agree but I think he meant a relationship between 2 consulting adults that doesn't include anyone else. Freedom.
all things between 2 people should be safe sane and consensual. How ever its No ones business what they do. Now I agree there are crazy people out there but most of the time its just 2 people that want to be left alone and have rights same as any one else.
Apparently the word 'consenting' is proving to be difficult for some here.
If it doesn't have any effect on others, I agree they should be allowed to do anything they wanna do.
However, if they consume drugs and then go and murder someone, that's not ok :)
Yes, please, let consenting adults do what they want behind closed doors.
quem cala, consente,quem ri, consente, também.
What is forbidden between consenting adults behind the closed doors should be decided only by the same adults! It is nobody's business  except that of people behind the closed doors.
I am sick of the christian doctrine trying to control the world and dictate what people can do when it comes to relationships. Not everyone is christian and the "Church" has no right forcing its views on others when most of the members of that religion are commandment breaking Hippocrates. Yes I am a a Reverend how ever  I am a Legally ordained PAGAN Reverend! 
I can think of one...where one adult agrees and consents to be killed by the other...think something like that happened in Germany a while back.
Just off the top of my head: homicide (or i guess with consent that would be assisted suicide), cannibalism, incest, insider trading, money laundering, adultery, hatching other criminal plots.  Sorry Richard, but you left yourself wide open on that one! XD
In general I agree. Unfortunately this consent may cease during the action or even afterwards. Sometimes there may also be hidden dependencies, even in a way the dependant person isn't aware of. So I would add "as long as no one violates human dignity".
Well, as much as proibão any act, does not mean it will stop happening, and domestic violence happens all the time and Momente at any time and place need not be exact within a residênsia, who have to prohibit acts tals própias are the people for their good propio.
i know what a foreign concept! GARYJOHNSON2012
I'll wait in my humble home for us to make love, not closed doors proibão me to do this please:)
It depends on what the consent is about and of the level of understanding the consenting adults have about what they are consenting.  My answer to your question is many things, such as murder, serious bodily harm, etc. Now, the missing keyword in your question, I think, is sexually if the the scope of the question is sex. 
Government intervention should be forbidden between consenting adults behind closed doors. That covers about 99.99% of it. The people that shouldn't be allowed to do what they want are people looking to control private life that has negligible impact on the outside world.
I agree.  Law does not equal Moral. Many illiegal acitivities are not immoral in my view. Moral are very subjective... hence the notion that what consenting adults do is none of your business. 

No one is forcing you to do it too? Whats the problem?

My only exception is that drugs & kids don't mix... If you are getting high on crack with a kid in the house, you are an unfit parent and need help.
+Scott Allen It is not a difficult to understand :) . What is difficult is to do is to legaly determine if there actually was a consent in situations where human rights of one person get violated. Extreme example:  Will a mother consent to being raped so the rapist wouldn't hurt/kill her child?
The thing is that what goes on behind "Closed" doors is being broad casted beyond "Closed" doors in some cases.
How about a Drugs Den right next door to your house (I assume you'd be happy with that?), Or a Pedo ring in a house next to your child's school (Happy with that?), or a terrorist training camp, or an animal cruelty club, or a self-harm appreciation society, or a cult, or a ...

Turning a blind eye to "anything" behind closed doors just opens up a whole can of worms. I have nothing against privacy, but this is a different matter and one I think cannot be solved by sweeping statements. There must be a balance.
The issues of privacy and consent are so simple and yet so complex.
"Yes, nothing should be forbidden between consenting adults.
But "behind closed doors" who is the arbiter of what constitutes consent and when consent can be revoked?
the key word is consenting which eliminates the possibility of forbidding actions between two people. Let the universe judge.
When does consenting become truth or lies? Situations of abuse are rarely by consent, but fear causes nothing to be said. Consenting laws take away that small protection of some justice.
Hmmm, if 2 'consenting adults' decide that one is going to kill the other should it be allowed on the basis of a signed contract or should we ensure that they are both of sound mind first.  While I agree with the sentiment I think the legal minefield it will open would be a nightmare.  
I'm guessing he's talking about gay sex....
The human race is said to be evolved only when, it removes those closed doors and accepts freely whatever happens between two consenting adults...!
+Helen Cooper I am pretty sure asking someone to kill you does not count as a "sound mind".
Please define "consent" "adult" and "closed door." Just one of many for instances that create complication in what otherwise sounds like a simple statement is the interaction of therapist and client.
+Daniel Cook - Euthanasia proponents would disagree.  +Anna-Marie Butler - why do people always assume that what turns them off automatically turns off others.  S&M is hardly unheard of, yet to many it would be considered abusive.  Why should this be removed from the realm of 2 consenting adults because society disagrees with it?  If we allow this exception to the 'anything goes' rule, where do we draw the line?  
According to GOD, YES! Nonetheless, I agree that each person have their own free will which no one has the right to meddle with. No matter if right or wrong.
I get what your saying but there are a few laws i can think of that shouldnt be done even if they consent. Sadly, some of these things happen and include non-conseting parties or even minors. You of course equally have drugs, fraud, incest and terrorist plots. I do however get the jist of the original point.
People should do as they like, personal freedom! Even if your religious surely all religions believe in free will, so it's up to you if you make those choices or not. 

So as long as everyone consents and it does not harm or affect people outside then people should be able to do as they please. 
This is why I'm a libertarian.  Let those do what they will!  So long as they to not hinder nor harm or deceive others and their property.  
How is it even remotely anybody else's business other than the consenting adults beats me...Who in this Universe gave them the right to pass judgement ....I'd like to know....which part of CONSENTING ADULTS do they not understand?????
To answer to the original question: Anything that could have repercussions outside the "closed door" environment. I think, however, as time goes, people will be more willing to accept the "as long as you don't bother me" philosophy thanks to multi-cultural awareness and the fact that we don't simply do what we are told without understanding it...most of the time!
As long as both fully consent and whatever they do is not causing harm to anyone including themselves or to's nobody else's business.

if it is my decision and it doesn't involve you or harms others let me alone and mind your own business .. it is not your right to decide what I do -
+Ebrahim Al Romaihi How in the world can a person understand god's judgement without being divine themselves? Don't you think there might be a little lost in translation when a omniscient force decided to communicate in a material way, unless humans have the capacity to be omniscient (and thereby divine) themselves. God is not a post to attach your own feelings on the world, and definitely not someone (or thing) you should proxy with your own feelings. IMHO.
watching EASTENDERS. LOL hahaha!!!! great!
+Brad Gross he did say consenting adults. Although if you murder someone with their consent, I can't imagine that their consent would hold up in court. And its not really rape if it's consensual.
I think that each religion is to be discussed. It is controversial for each religion has become a problem in the whole world.
Well, you officially sound like a sicko.
Nope... can't think of anything...
I have to agree with Richard, government's rule for consenting adult's actions behind closed doors should be limited to advisory. The exception being if those actions pose a risk health or safety risk to those outside of that consent. Example that would be excluded, running a meth lab in your house (excluding the fact meth is an illegal drug and very dangerous, simply operating a meth lab is extremely unsafe, and in many cases can produce poisonous and explosive gases that can injure and kill those outside of the facility of manufacture).

We (Governments locally, nationally, and globally) waste millions of dollars every year (let's not forget who paid their taxes in so the government had this money to spend...YOU) trying to control people's behavior. The truth is people are going to do what they want regardless. Forcing unnecessary behavior requirements on people is somewhat childish and doing so encourages people to behave like children by pushing back against the rules, we all know what the results of our actions are. This is true no matter what the legal, moral, or religious boundaries and ramifications are.

It is a shame that so many bigoted people in the world can not stand back in silence and simply appreciate that people are not creating new laws to restrict their rights to do the things that they enjoy doing.
Mr briefman. I agree with but I also want to add that without the civil rights movement and the law clearly including the rights of Black Americans in this country we would still be in slaved so I agree government shouldn't interfere but law also protects rights of the persecuted and threat citizens of that country. It should be legal to be with whom ever you like. The law.
+Joshua Briefman  - I think you've got it.  Hopefully that spells it out for the folks here who don't understand the term "Consenting Adults".
+Jake Coventry made a comment that a few people here seems to agree with. I do not and would remind people to look up what 'consent' and 'adults' mean.

> How about a Drugs Den right next door to your house (I assume you'd be happy with that?),

Yep. No problem with that.

> Or a Pedo ring in a house next to your child's school (Happy with that?),

No, but what can I do? I would however suggest that something extreme be done about people that mistreat children, including public flogging, a tattoo on the forehead, forced castration and possible death. Once those reprisals are enforced I suspect that pedo ring will be of a very manageable size.

>  or a terrorist training camp,

Your terrorists might be my freedom fighters. It seems like there is a lot of terrorists running about in Syria killing civilians and children (at least according to the Syrian government). The Tamil Tigers or IRA - are they also terrorists? Or freedom fighters?

>  or an animal cruelty club,

The topic was consenting adults. Animals can not give consent and certainly do not qualify as adults.

>  or a self-harm appreciation society,

No problem. You want to make tattoos illegal too? Or ear-rings? Circumcision? Male circumcision? Adult male circumcision?
Difficult. I would tend to agree, but that assumes, that they can both (all of them) judge the consequences of their activity and no third party is involved. One example that is not OK is incest or other sexual activity that might result in a child born with a disability. Another is if one of them is drunk or under the infloence of drugs so he/she cannot undertstand the consequences.
When are you running for office?
+Richard Branson  You ask in your blog post if anyone can think of anything that adults can not do. And there is one simple rule, a person can never even willingly give away their human rights.

For example, one can not volunteer to be a slave, hell even trying to make that into a sentence is difficult. 
Drugs is difficult, to do drugs that you've grown and cultivated yourself behind closed doors could be said to not harm others but fields of poppies or coca can't be grown in ones own home (well not in mine anyway) so does the drug taking of consenting adults not affect others, perhaps in other countries, but others nonetheless.  In the case of overdose is the health care system which turns a blind eye to your activities behind closed doors against possible medical advice then not obliged to provide assistance because one gave consent?

Sex-wise though, if you can find someone of a similar sexual bent and it doesn't harm others, let your freak flag fly, doesn't affect my life :)
I find that as time goes on, the more ignorant we become. What worked for 1000s of years we recently decided we can abandon in the name of our hunger for self gratification. (as long as there's no harm) Furthermore, across the board the uber-rich support this nonsense. Consider if in 1949, Edward Branson decided that he preferred to marry the man across the street and/or Eve Branson had decided that the parasite growing in her womb needed to be terminated to protect her health. After all what harm could come from such liberty. I'm glad for Mr. Richard Branson, previous generations weren't so stupid. 
Add long as it does not cause real harm to others I think you are right.
As long as it stays within those closed doors NO!! If it doesn't affect anyone but them know one should be able to say anything
I find some of the"libertarian" bashing comments pretty funny. Vote Conservative! We'll push for your liberties at the expense of everyone else. ;)
Some are obvious such as murder. It does not matter where it happens, it's wrong. Principle trumps circumstance or location.
As for sexual sins, they never really remain behind closed doors. It does affect the rest of society. How much they are frowned upon by those who do not engage in them and believe them to be wrong will dictate how civil our society will remain or if it will even ultimately survive as we know it. Immorality destroys civilizations.
Society would say: If no harm is done physically or mentally - everything should be game.  I believe the OP question has nothing to do with moral-ethics or religion.  Definition of "consenting" means both parties desire the action/event/outcome.  Mind you..some like to play rough so physical or mental harm should not be forbidden. ;)
Anything with mutual consent (based on a sober and unenforced and mentally healthy judgement from all parties concerned) and which doesn't involve minors or animals is fine with me.

So the answer is no.
+Jan Bruun Andersen I am sure there is another side of the story and that is your opinion... Interesting discussion. I was just pointing out that there are lots of possibilities to consider and there is no easy or "right" answer. I am very open minded, but like to consider the ramifications of everything.
Anything that affects a loved one in a negative manor. 
Murder, rape, physical abuse, mental abuse and crisps.
Mr hickey I for one am glad you live in this generation. Its not your call to decide the outcome between two consenting adults and your presumption is the same presumption people had when faced with the question on whether the world was round or flat their argument well we can't dare think differently its been this way for 1000 years and even then bold people stood up and said your wrong sir. By the way who knows where we will be in the next 20 years people will travelling to space who blasphemous.
+Brendan Walsh , it does say "consenting adults" behind closed doors.  None of those examples are consenting adults - only one consenting party and one victim.
I am disgusted, going through all the comments, at how roughly half the people here have no idea what "consenting adults" means.  First, it means they are not plotting against other NON-consenting adults.  Second, it cannot include abuse, torture, incest, or other things where one person consents and the other person is coerced into something else.  Guys, let's think before blaming +Richard Branson for asking such a question.  If you don't know what a word means, Google it.  Thank you in advance for thinking before answering so silly.
JACKIE GLEASON I believe any sin is an abomination to GOD, from the time Moses wrote the 5 books all is clear.
Ashley Sue Bullers, You are correct it does say "consenting adults" behind closed doors.  What it does not say is how many consenting adults we are discussing here.  The question leaves a great deal of ambiguity and because of that, what I said is valid.  Furthermore many  people presume that what is going on  behind closed doors has something to do with sex which may not necessarily be the case.  As well as this one wonders how anybody would know what is going on' behind closed doors between consenting adults' in the first place ?
Consenting adults, behind closed doors can create a pact to do anything they want - it becomes illegal when they actually attempt to act on it. You don't get to control speech (short of the proverbial yelling fire in a crowded building), thoughts or emotions. Morality has nothing to do with legality (fortunately or unfortunately depending on your views.) Free Will (even God grants that.)
"Is there anything which should be forbidden between consenting adults behind closed doors?"

Planning on flying a plane they don't own and don't know how to land  is realy is high up there on the list.

Basicly two concenting adults can plan to impact the non concenting.

And the act of planning in that respect is against the law, let alone acting upon said plan.
+Ashley Sue Bullers we all understand what consent means. What some people are saying is that it opens a lot ways for people with bad intents to abuse the good intent behind the original question. in other words if we are not VERY careful on how we define this freedom, it would allow for all kinds of bad things to go unpunished. If it was always so clear what happened, and we could always know the truth behind it we wouldn't need justice system as sophisticated as it is now. Anyway I am happy that in my country there are not many things that are forbidden behind a closed door and not hurting anybody.
Double case of suicide? It's not right to take a life, even your own.
If one of the adults is made of anti-matter, hugs shouldn't be allowed.
There are some things that people probably should not do, period. But we'll never agree on what those things are. On the other hand, whether  I think they should do them or not, I do accept that what they do behind closed doors is almost invariably none of my business. And provided that 'closed doors' really means there are no consequences for others, I am happy to keep it as 'none of my business'

The problems start when people forget that what they do in 'private' often does have consequences for others - overindulging in drugs, for example, may be private, but often has consequences for others - including children and families.

Libertarians are quick to blame government (and others) for interfering, but often are too selfish to notice that 'no man - or woman - is an island'. What we do in private (or fail to do in public) all too often has consequences. If we are part of a society, we cannot just opt out when it suits us, without first considering others.

And as I suspect this is all about drugs, one last thought - individual indulgence in private may well be harmless - but anyone who thinks drug taking at its current record level is harmless to society is a fool.

Decriminalise cannabis, and the benefits may outweigh the harm; decriminalise cocaine, and we'll lose many more young musicians, plus most of the advertising industry, the fashion industry and casino banking. I leave it to you to decide if that's a plus or a minus.

But please don't say it won't happen - if cocaine was legal, the price would plummet as layers of dealers were cut out of the trade - but it would still be addictive, and a cheap addictive drug is much more dangerous - to society, as well as the individual - than a costly one. Strange that 'legallisers' (who presumably want cheaper supplies) never notice the 'addictive' aspect.
the answer is no. man action is subjected to God. it please God or not this nothing to do being adult .
What have you done and I'll let you know?
sir if ur heart is true then nothing is wrong its batter u ask to ur heart u will get the answer 
yip let your conscience be your compass - it was given for a reason - your safety and that of others...
Yes I can. Sex with an immediate relative.
sure you can - should you is the question conscience will answer....
Me, a failing kidney, a team of doctors, and a consenting adult poor person from Moldova. Can we make a kidney transplant behind closed doors?
+Ashley Sue Bullers - Concur. How about we make a new law?

Only people with a college degree are allowed to post on the Internet and to vote in national elections?
+Paul Gray - I think Orwell had a word for that. What was it? Oh yes! Thought Crime.

Remember, 1984 was a warning, not a manual as some politicians seems to think.
+Caroline Bentley - it all depends on the mental state of the volunteer. If a psychological evaluation deemed him to be mentally sick then s/he can not be a consenting adult and the question becomes moot.
+herman sidhu - I'm not joking. While it is not illegal to drink unpasteurised milk in Sweden, it is illegal to sell it.
Murder or conspiring with the intent to murder someone 
+Richard Branson - Interesting that Mr Branson asks these questions - without giving away his point of view - then never appears again. Do you think he even bothers to read our views?  I have my doubts after participating in several of these threads, none with any outcome at all.
+David Cloutier  - You said, and I agree, "Many illegal activities are not immoral in my view". But don't forget also that "Many immoral activities are not illegal"; allow too much unobserved freedom, and there can be consequences. To offer one weak example, setting a poor example to children is arguably wrong; but it sure ain't illegal. I am not suggesting that consenting adults should not have privacy; merely that we should be aware that such freedom WILL be abused. You also noted a similar issue.
It certainly isn't my business; it probably isn't the government's, either - the unanswerable question - Leaving God out of it for the moment - is 'whose business is it?'
Was Mrs Thatcher right, when she famously said "And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."? I hope not!

[Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, was talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987]
I follow the non-aggression principle which states paraphrased, that it is immoral to initiate the use of force or fraud.  This has some pretty heavy implications when you juxtapose government actions (of just about any sort) with it.  

With the non-aggression principle in mind, anyone who would attempt to prevent consenting adults from partaking in any activity would be by definition immoral.  So long as that activity is not initiating the use of force or fraud against an non-consensual third party.

You do, however, have to take responsibility of the actions you engage in.
well they don;t  really practice what they preach.
Wow. : / so many reasons why NOT to close the door!
We need to think seriously about using the legal system to make adult behavior ILLEGAL. Just because I can't think of anything that should be made illegal for me doesn't mean I can say the same for everyone.
there is something consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to do behind closed doors and that is to beat the crap out of their kids, or each other for that matter.
Mini UN
Peter, I don't think your comment is about consenting adults.
1. A child is not an adult.
2. A person is probably not consenting to violence.
No.  I agree some things were just meant to be.
Add a comment...