That's what the quotation marks are for... Essentially, to separate the fake, the Christians in name only.

I think the reason for this "misnomer" is that consent when discussed as a concept has come to mean more than just "permission." It has taken on a broader mantle to describe the power

Great information, but the Keys study was debunked years ago, just fyi... even the article you linked was published in 2013. Was this maybe an older piece you wrote that you're now adding here?

Thank you! I'm humbled.

Precisely. :-)

You're welcome, thanks for the feedback

I get what you're saying, and to an extent, I can agree with a good bit of it. But I would interject that that's the difference between objective and subjective--not all standards are "norms".

In a word? Horseshit. Consent can be implied, but the implication must actually be given (even then, it would appear express and informed consent is the only form which can stand up to logical scrutiny

We'll have to swap stories sometime. I smell a series. :-)

Thanks, James!

Thank you. I look forward to the feedback!

Thank you! ❤

Thanks!

Thank you!

Don't tell me what to do! 😂

I was actually just working on a post on this topic, but I take it from another angle. I think they'll compliment one another well. Whenever we examine a philosophical concept, we have the concept itself

Absolutely. It's the initiation of violence in the absence of it which is impermissible/unacceptable. It all boils down to consent. And when you violate the consent of another, you essentially negate the