consensual

It's all a consensual hallucination which works only as long as everyone still has confidence in the system.

Try not to get confused: writing about mass-surveillance plans is treason, the secret non-consensual mass-surveillance itself is not.

If reddit is stricter than the law in banning cyber harassment and some non-consensual photographs, they aren't much stricter.

But posting non-consensual pornography is more than speech; it's also a deliberate and disastrous violation of someone else's privacy.

Even consensual sex is often considered an inappropriate topic, so it wouldn't be surprising if that applied doubly to rape.

But my point is that there are legitimate oppositions to the idea that consensual sex is OK, both religion/moral and scientific.

Thing is though, it is okay to have sex—safe and consensual sex, that is.

But ads often constitute a theft of attention, a non-consensual transmission of ideas.

The gulf between Neil Young and anyting resembling consensual reality seems vast.

And nothing done entirely in consensual privacy should be a crime.

It's legal, it's consensual, it's something you and your partners enjoy--and yet, you really would prefer that it not be Googleable during a board meeting.

Our aim is not to block ads, but to prevent non-consensual invasions of people's privacy because we believe they are inherently objectionable.

Not to stretch the analogy too far, but this non-consensual transmission of ideas could aptly be described as a sort of “memetic assault”.

While people make fun of how "fake" bitcoins are (as if any other money were not just a slightly more consensual mass hallucination), I really do like how they have demonstrated that internet money can be a lot more convenient.

Realize that you sound like the people that said: "I see my spouse as the person of the opposite sex that I want to marry." There are real challenges to handling society with n > 2 marriages (pension splitting, wills, children, etc), but how a person feels about their personal choices shouldn't impact consensual adults that feel otherwise.

> So is sodomy Well, on the face of the statutes, yes, but unlike statutes criminalizing adultery, those criminalizing consensual sodomy have been pretty clearly struck down as unconstitutional, so the fact that they remain "on the books" does not actually mean that they are criminal, since the law purporting to make them so is itself invalid.

Consensual sensory experiences allow that being to approach its own devotion fully.