5 Hypothetical Questions About Sex (Answered For You)

Hypothetical #5: Sex With One's Self

No doubt you've encountered this gem of a brain teaser before, but if not, get ready to scratch your noggin. Here's the scenario: You've been cloned by science, and your clone comes out looking and thinking exactly like you. The two of you are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same person. You have the same memories, the same body, and they react just as you would to any and all situations. Time to fuck.

Is having sex with this humptastic clone of yours an act of gay sex, or an insane new form of masturbation?

It's hard to imagine sex with another person as masturbation, but is this even another person? Genetically speaking, this is you. On the other hand, you and your clone are the same sex, so clearly this is at least gay, right?

The correct answer is, of course: gay. Your clone may be genetically you, but it's still a separate entity. If you die, the clone lives on, complete with memories of the strange gay sex session the two of you had just after your clone was born. How that will ruin their psyche, we can only speculate.

Now for a twist! Shyamalan!

An alternate version of this hypothetical posits not a clone, but a time traveler. You have gone back in time -- let's say to last week -- to warn your past self that you're about to get good and sexed by future you. Is this sexual encounter gay or masturbation? Contrary to what your first instincts may tell you, this is not the same as the clone scenario, and is 100-percent not gay. This is meta-masturbation. Masturbation involves pleasing oneself, while a gay encounter requires another member of the same sex. Past You is not another member of the same sex per se; it's the same member. It's you, pleasing yourself (assuming you don't do it wrong), and therefore crazy sci-fi masturbation!

Hypothetical #4: Sex With Your Hot Cousin

This one strays away from sci-fi and more into the social damnation. Is there a way out of this conundrum that leaves you morally and psychologically unscathed? Well, that's for you to judge. I'm just here to provide answers devoid of moral context. The question is as follows: Would you have sex with a hot cousin if you knew no one would ever find out? And if you're more of a gambling man, there's this variant: Would you rather have sex with a hot cousin knowing no one would find out, or not have sex, but have everything think that you did?

Take a moment to let that seep into your pores. Is there a good way to answer either of these? For the second one, you have the moral high ground by not porking your cousin, even if no one believes you. But is smug self-satisfaction worth carrying that scarlet CF on your chest (CF standing for cousin fucker, of course)? On the other hand, you only have your own guilt to live with if you actually do pork your cousin, because no one else will ever know. Or will you?

The answer to this is clear. By presenting the options as opposites, we're acknowledging that you don't want anyone to know you porked your cousin. You find that objectionable, as it's the standard in our society to frown upon incest. However, the question also directly states that your cousin is hot, so if you agree to the parameters of the question, you acknowledge the hotness of said cousin and the awkwardness of society knowing it. Therefore, you would clearly be down for porking that cousin in secret. There is no internal guilt; you're just a little freaky. And hey, maybe they're just a cousin by marriage. That's barely a problem at all, right?

Besides, historical documentaries have shown us that it could be way, way worse.

Knowing the answer to the "would you rather" version of the question also makes the standard question a simple one. Of course you'd do your hot cousin! You'd do your cousin on the couch, you'd touch your cousin on the pouch, you'd ride your cousin down the hall, you'd boff them in a bathroom stall. Would you, could you, in your car? Pork them! Pork them! Here they are!

Hypothetical #3: The Lecherous Millionaire

Did you ever see the movie Indecent Proposal? This is like that, but with less rich and leathery Robert Redford and more sitting around and thinking. Posited by philosopher Joel Feinberg, the situation is as follows: A woman with an ill child is approached by a millionaire. He offers to pay for the child's treatment if the mother will have sex with him. What to do?

This version is actually scuzzier than Indecent Proposal, because in that film, it was just an offer of a million bucks to knock dem boots. Not a lot of coercion involved, beyond what personal greed can muster up. This version is much more manipulative, what with the sick child. Or it seems that way. To be fair, this millionaire is in no way obligated to pay for anything at all, so it's kind of nice that he's even offering. Though it's kind of monstrous that he would add "just so long as I get that sweet momma booty" onto the end of it. It's probably safe to assume this millionaire is a bit evil.

This is supposed to be an exercise in coercion, and whether it fits the requirements. But if you have no reasonable alternative means to save your child, this does qualify as pretty clear-cut coercion. And you probably should do it. I'm going to be honest; I wouldn't even need a gender reversal on this if we're talking a life-saving situation. I'll take one for the team, if that's what it takes. Sure, we'll have to work out the details ahead of time. I'd just as soon not be making out with this guy and brushing his hair over his ear, but if I need to pull up my socks for 20 minutes while he works out some aggression, and the end result is saving the life of someone I care for, then let's do this. It's clearly the right thing.

Hypothetical #2: Sex With The Hottest Person You Can Think Of Once, But They Have An Incurable STD, Or Clean Sex With The Ugliest Person You Can Think Of 100 Times

This is a classic thoughtless douche question. Don't feel bad if you've asked or been asked something similar by friends -- most guys do this in their lives. We're quite crass when left amongst our own kind. But we're also relentlessly creative, as this question demonstrates. This one plumbs the very depths of your black soul to make you commit to something, anything, that paints you as a monster. Every guy has tried the "I'm not going to answer that" route before, too, in case you were wondering. It never works. We've all answered. Whatever the question was, we answered it.

I read recently that the average sexual encounter lasts about six minutes. That's how long it takes a man to go from "ready for duty" to "job's done, I'm heading home." On average. So what we're saying is, would you rather experience six minutes of sex that will give you something like AIDS, or 600 minutes of sex that will just make you feel bad? And what is 600 minutes? 10 hours? Slightly less than half of one day of the rest of your life? Come on, man.

Clearly, I'm voting for the ugly pork marathon on this one. Keep in mind that we assume this is safe sex, so you're guaranteed disease-free. You're able to become aroused somehow, so maybe this person has a good personality. Maybe they grow on you after a while. And if nothing else, you have 100 chances to maybe try something new that you can then use later on (because this only took ten hours of your damn life), when you have sex with other people you find more attractive who aren't going to murder you with booty diseases.

Hypothetical #1: Would You Go Gay For $1 Million?

I think that, in order to fully pass through puberty, every teenage male must either pose or have this question posed to them in at least some form. It doesn't have to be the exact wording -- anything from "Would you take a shot in the butt?" to "Would you go down on Gary Busey?" for whatever the acceptable denomination of money is. I have no insight into how actual gay kids deal with these questions, but it's probably a little easier for them to manage. But for your average 13-year-old who dreads being labelled a "fag" by the cool kids, this is a real thinker.

Now, you can approach this question scientifically and ponder the nature of your sexuality as an irreversible and irrepressible aspect of biology, but is that necessary? I'm not gay as a way of life, but I'll take a shot any day of the week for a million bucks. Greed trumps biology at the best of times. I like to think this is true of most people, and I'll tell you why: Why not?

"Why not?" is kind of a shitty answer to any why question, but it packs a decent punch here. Why not? What's the worst that could happen? You have to sit on a cushion the next day? That seems a small price to pay.

Now, some of you may take that view as glib. You're sacrificing your morals for money! You're degrading yourself, debasing yourself! Ugh. Only if you believe you are, I would counter. You have to appreciate I'm also of a school that would argue in favor of the sex trade. If you can hire a maid to clean your house, a butler to butle your house, a cook to make you dinner, or a personal trainer to make you fit, then why not a sex worker to make you less horny? They are all literally the exact same thing -- a person using their own body and talents to provide you, a customer, with some service that you pay for. It's only a misguided sense of right and wrong that has ever let anyone believe sex work is somehow lesser work, and that's irrefutable.

Some people will be quick to point out the violence, drug abuse, disease, pimps, etc. in sex work, but that's ancillary at best and a red herring at worst. If you, tomorrow, charged someone $100 for a blowie and you're not diseased, being pimped, abusing drugs, or being trafficked or oppressed, is there any argument that could stand for why you shouldn't do what you did that isn't based entirely upon subjective morality? Fucks no! Ergo, you should totally go gay for a million bucks. That's the easiest money you'll ever make.

And since we're discussing morality, at least tangentially, never forget that money is not the root of all evil. Even if you want to ascribe to that silly old notion, or the other ding-dong one about money not buying happiness (do you know how many things I could get for a million bucks that would make me immensely happy? Money can buy all kinds of happy feelings), they're terribly outdated and often misused.

For instance, it's actually "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." That is the real quote, or something much like it, and it's a warning not to let greed sway you from the path of righteousness. A one-time million-dollar backdoor jamboree does not qualify as succumbing to the root of all kinds of evil. It's called a sound investment, and I would argue it's the exact opposite of that quote. You're proving yourself financially savvy so that you can then avoid further temptation away from righteousness, since you have that money situation well and truly taken care of.

See why comics should never try to work out sexual hypotheticals in 5 Comics from When Sexual Assault was Considered Hilarious, and check out the guy who tried to call cheating on his wife performance art in 6 Perverted Sexual Fantasies People Passed Off As 'Art.'

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see one sexual hypothetical go horribly wrong in How Not to Get Away With Sexual Harassment , and watch other videos you won't see on the site!

Also follow us on Facebook, and get access to exclusive content like live streams, Facebook contests, and more!

Deep inside us all, behind our political leanings, moral codes, and private biases, there is a cause so colossally stupid that we surprise ourselves with how much we care. Whether it's toilet paper position, fedoras on men, or Oxford commas, we each harbor a preference so powerful that we can't help but proselytize to the world. In the next live episode of the Cracked podcast, guest host Soren Bowie is joined by Cody Johnston, Michael Swaim, and comedian Annie Lederman to discuss the most trivial things we will argue about until the day we die. Get your tickets here!