Yes? No? – Consent

The other night I watched a half-hour VICE Newscast segment called “Consent.” It covered all the latest notable cases of questionable to rape-assault cases that have become national news like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Aziz Ansari, Roy Moore, or Brett Kavanaugh. Here is the full episode. I highly recommend watching the entire 28-mins:

The part of this newscast that most struck me, and really appalled me, especially the aggressive men interviewed or the typical alpha-male in those exploitative situations — most of them around large amounts of alcohol — was that no one in the entire documentary, hinted anything about timing! More specifically, appropriate reasonable elapsed time when meeting for the first-time and possibly becoming intimate. Most of the interviews addressed initial encounters by strangers(?), maybe second-time encounters with each other. It seems by this documentary and the thousands of cases we constantly hear or read about that these incidents are happening (for the most part) between strangers or early-acquaintances. This shocks me! The speed or pace at which these aggressors (men) move are in my opinion vile. I have so many thoughts and angered responses about these abuses, how they go unaddressed, undisciplined, or unreported to law-enforcement way too often. It is a very serious social problem and disgrace; some/much of it absolutely criminal!

However, before I say anymore I want all of you to share your thoughts, start this discussion about this VICE Newscast and the subject of consent. What exactly constitutes an unambiguous yes or no for sexual activity? Please feel free to be brutally honest with your comments.

————

Creative Commons License
Blog content with this logo by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.com/contact-me/.

Genocide, Abortion & Female Rights

I normally do not do reblogs, not because the blogger or the content may or may not be poor, inconsequential, or that reblogs are someone else’s ideas and composition. I like all credit, if not most credit, to go to the innovator. Secondly, I seldom reblog because I find refuge here in WordPress. Shallowness, uninspired, and overdone weigh my eyelids, smash my head onto my laptop, to then drool from the mouth as I snore. With the excessive saturated overabundance of “social” derivatives like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, (yawn) Pinterest, Instagram, and a number of others, they obesely inflate the world-wide-web with significantly less value. I don’t want WordPress or my blog to become another diluted derivative so I’ve never reblogged in five years.

Until now.

This blog-post and adjoined subjects from Allallt deserves republishing:

Can abortion ever be banned, while maintaining female rights?

Allallt logoAllallt was asked and in return he has asked his audience that these adjoined subjects of abortion, genocide, and female rights be broadcast among a wider atheist audience. Since I am not atheist and he has welcomed my visits and comments, I believe anyone can participate who feel these three topics are of great importance. However, a word of caution:  Though obviously the three subjects are paramount and controversial, and as would be expected some comments and Commentors get… umm, how can I say(?)… highly energetic with their word and grammar choices, try to see beyond the saber-rattling and contribute meaningful dialogue and discussion. I hope you’ll take the time to at least read Allallt’s post, and if inclined Madblog’s post for some context.

To encourage participation on Allallt’s post, I have disabled comments here.

(paragraph break)

How’s that working out? — Part Two

As part of the Alternative Lifestyles blog-posts migration over to the new blog The Professor’s Lifestyles Memoirs, this post has been moved there. To read this post please click the link to the blog.

Your patience is appreciated. Thank you!