Absolutely. The words “consenting adults” make this statement complete as well. If the word consent weren’t there, that is the only situation where I would argue that the state (as in a court, medical personnel, and support systems) should be involved. Sexual assault cases are widely unreported because a large majority of rapists do not serve jail time. However, activities occurring between consenting adults can and should be enjoyed without the threat of exposure.

Very much so. Yet with that personal power comes personal responsibility.
Responsibility for any lives you create, and responsibility for any measures you take to ensure you create none.

What are these adults consenting to, and what is the state's interest in the individuals? Are these relevant questions?

• If consenting adults conceive a child within the privacy of their bedroom, can we argue that the state is naturally vested as it legally establishes the identity and parentage of this child? While the specific details of the child's conception are arguably not relevant, is the state already indirectly being implicated?

• If consenting adults, complicit in a crime, are known to have spent incriminating time together in a private bedroom, does the state have a vested interest? Is even one person's potential for guilt, reason enough for the state to seek information regarding their interactions?

• Are there activities that adults can mutually consent to, but that which may yet be illegal? Certain degrees of bodily harm in the UK, for example, cannot be consented to. Similarly, incestuous relations are illegal in many countries. However, legality in itself is not an argument, but merely evidence of state involvement. Is it valid then, for the state to involve itself in consensual harm and consensual incest? In other words, is consent a valid court defense for someone convicted of injuring another individual behind closed doors?

This opinion is very poorly worded. The amount of people who believe that no criminal activity ever happens in a private bedroom is astounding.

I agree with the claim. However, the number of people who are in favour of the maxim and yet choose to ignore it when it comes to such things as mandatory minimum wage, private schooling and private college, gun control, etc., (judging by the results of other polls on the website) is astounding.

After all, if state should not regulate consensual sex between two adults in a private bedroom, then why should it regulate a consensual employment relation between two adults in a private bedroom? What about the same relation, but outside of a private bedroom? It seems counterintuitive that location would have any bearing on the answer. Why should it be the state's business to regulate what kind of private education, private medical care or private counselling happens in a private bedroom or, more generally, behind closed doors? Yet, most states do heavily regulate these things and people don't seem to realize the contradiction.