Free Sex in the Workplace: The Taxpayer is Involved

The rising free sex activeness among university students all over the world started to threaten the social structure of Indonesia. Free sex activeness is on the rise from year to year in Indonesia. This rise has been caused by the liberalization policies of the government as well as the increased availability of adult entertainment material on the internet. Pornography has also been made legal in Indonesia and some bars have installed porno playing machines inside their premises.

Any adult entertainment which involves consenting adults and involves a minimal amount of force or nudity is not considered to be degrading or immoral. The law is very clear on the subject and the provision for adult entertainment in the Indonesian old testament is called khwai. It is strictly prohibited to perform sexual acts that involve any form of nudity, forcing or dishonesty. The law is pretty clear on this issue and the consequences for violating it are pretty severe.

On the other hand, there are some problems with the application of the law. The application of the morality clause is too broad and not just the morally wrong things but also using sexual services for non-consummation purposes. This means that, a married couple could freely engage in sexual activities for as long as it is within their conjugal relationship. This is considered to be degrading and immoral, and therefore a violation of the sexual freedom.

Another major problem with the application of the morality clause is rooted in the notion of rootedness. The notion of rootedness means that the family could be considered as the basic unit of society. According to this concept, sexual relationships outside of the family are unacceptable. This is actually contrary to the human right to freedom and privacy, and therefore the sexual relationships should be limited within the family. This could be viewed as a moral hazard.

In fact, rootedness highlights both the sexual relationship and the financial interests more than the moral hazard itself. Because sex outside of the marriage bond is seen as an invasion of the family's interests, and therefore an infringement on the moral right of the family, the couple could be sued for damages based on the consequences of engaging in sexual relations outside of the institution of marriage. This could lead to extreme cases where the plaintiff would need to repay not just monetary damages but also the emotional pain and suffering.

Despite the above arguments, the moral hazard argument has some merit. If a couple wants to have a sexual relationship that is not directly involved in their relationship with the taxpayer (the one who is financially involved), they may be able to use the tax code to their advantage. By inserting a clause within the tax code that states that the taxpayer (the taxpayer) will not be penalized for engaging in certain conduct, they can get around the fact that they may be financially involved in such conduct. However, if they directly engage in such conduct, the taxpayer may be held personally liable for such conduct. It is not clear what remedy will be available to the taxpayer in such a situation.