> Fromwww.alexanderpruss.blogspot.com:(I thought this was interesting,
> and highly relevant to this group.)
>
> Thesis: It is wrong to intentionally attempt to sexually excite
> another person without the other's consent.
>
> I will argue for the Thesis in a moment. But at the moment, I want to
> clarify a few things and give some consequences. I take it to be a
> consequence of the Thesis that the following three actions are wrong:
>
> Including sexually suggestive imagery in advertising in non-
> pornographic media in order that the viewer might be sexually excited
> and thus inclined to favor the product.
> Dressing in a provocative way in public in order to sexually excite
> others.
> Seducing another by trying to cause another to become sexually
> excited, when the other does not consent to being caused to become
> sexually excited, whether the means be a romantic dinner, ethanol,
> unfermented grape juice, a movie, a touch, a word, etc. ...

> Fromwww.alexanderpruss.blogspot.com:(I thought this was interesting,
> and highly relevant to this group.)
>
> Thesis: It is wrong to intentionally attempt to sexually excite
> another person without the other's consent.

> I'll give you the short version.

> And it ain't far from that to the sort of situation where no American
> media would reprint the Danish cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed
> (peace be on him) because they were afraid of violent attacks from
> radical Muslims.
>