James Andrix says: Trying to wrap my head around this, I'll propose that this society has 'freedom of intercourse'. Stopping someone by force from having sex with you would be as improper as stopping them by force from talking to you, even if you didn't like it. Walking away might be acceptable but considered generally impolite. People who have nonconsenual sex frequently would be stigmatized and avoided as annoying people are today, but
Today nonconsenual sex is bundled with violence, fear of violence, and expectations of personal space. If the impossible possible culture is such that everyone expects their genitals to be part of the social space instead of their personal space, then no great sense of emotional violation will be felt even if the social interaction is unwanted.
Like in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"?
Untranslatable 2: The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
Then why didn't it just translate it as "santorum"?
"Bayesian cult encourages religious people to kill God in themselves" - how's that for a newspaper headline?
P.S. I'd delete this comment after a certain amount of time, you might not want it to get cached by google or something.
And this will, to some degree or other, be different for women than for men; maintaining/losing control of your sexuality on this deeper level is going to tap into female drives more strongly than male drives, for all the obvious reasons of evolutionary psychology.
BUAHAHAhahahahahaha! Did you wanna restate that, or are you going to let that stand as worded?