I’m really getting pretty damned sick of the infantile “enthusiastic consent” trope, which promotes a fairy-tale view of human sexuality in which the only possible reason for having sex is “fun”, the only acceptable form of consent is throwing oneself into sex with the wild and totally senseless abandon of a teenage wererabbit on coke, and all enjoyment of the act must be “fair” and “equal” (but how something so subjective is to be measured, we aren’t told). This is both dumb and dangerous. “Fun” is immaterial; this is the kind of argument used to stigmatize sex workers because we don’t have work-sex for “fun” or “pleasure”. The actual standard is, “Did everyone get enough of what they were looking for out of the encounter to be OK with it? And if not, was it because the other person was actually behaving badly?” There are lots of reasons for having sex, and “fun” or personal pleasure is only one of them. Just because it’s the only one you personally appreciate doesn’t make all the dozens of other reasons “bad” or “wrong” or “lesser”. Even people who do enjoy a sex act don’t necessarily enter into it “enthusiastically”. I know that I never do; being persuaded is a big part of the pleasure of sex for me, and I’m not remotely alone. And someone who needs to be persuaded is, by definition, not “enthusiastic”. Finally, even if the sex wasn’t everything you wanted, that does not automatically mean the other person was acting maliciously. Use your damned adult judgment, for Aphrodite’s sake; most people of both sexes are crap in bed, so bad sex is usually just due to the incompetence of one or both partners, not some eeeeeeeeeeeeevil plot on the part of one of them.
Furthermore, “enthusiasm” is a form of behavior characteristic of people incapable of actually considering all the aspects of a situation they find themselves in; it’s the elder sister of disappointment and the mother of resentment. “Enthusiasm” is what happens when hormones or neurology overwhelm considered judgment. It’s much more common in the young, whose brains haven’t completely stabilized yet. And while it can be intoxicating to experience, it’s unwise to make important decisions while intoxicated.
Adding the adjective “enthusiastic” seems to me a way to retroactively revoke consent. Now sometimes, revoking consent retroactively is right. (Maggie has listed many examples on this blog.) But agreeing to have sex with someone lousy in the sack doesn’t make the latter a rapist.
Thank you for your unrelenting sanity.
There are lots of reasons for having sex, and “fun” or personal pleasure is only one of them.
My late mother mumbled in her last years something like “I have to give it to him if I want to keep him”. Is that consensual? Transactional? (In any case… Why, mom? He just ain’t worth it.)
It was clearly transactional. Judging the value of keeping him is subjective. You placed one value on it, your mother another.
Can’t make a logical argument against propaganda, it’s promising free power through victimhood. Though “enthusiasm” is such a slight standard that it can apply to anyone’s mental state, notice that straight males are irrevocably excluded, and any application to same-sex situations is far more forgiving
I’ve had a lot of sexual “firsts” in my life … first male lover, first female lover, first threesome, first time bottoming in BDSM, first time topping, first bondage, first play party, et cetera, et cetera.
A lot of firsts, a lot of feelings, and something tells me that someone in Fauxminist-land would insist that any feeling other than one hundred percent “Oh-God-I-am-loving-this” means I was a victim of some heinous crime.
BULLSHIT!
Makes you wonder if any sexual newbie would qualify to get it on under these rules, and instead wind up a bunch of frustrated celibates too frightened to even try anything new … which is probably what the Dworkinite fauxminists really want.
“most people of both sexes are crap in bed”
Exactly what I’ve long suspected, and the individuals who are most eager to limit or prohibit sex are certainly the most sexually dysfunctional.
About the only place you will find enthusiastic, verbal, continuously expressed consent is in porn for men.
Clearly enthusiastic consent doesn’t apply to transactional sex. It’s for new sex partners, often casual, who you don’t know well yet. If course it seems stupid when you apply it to other situations, but it’s not FOR other situations.
I see enthusiastic consent as telling people (yes, women too) that if their partner goes silent, or stiff & awkward, or looks really uncomfortable, or like they’ve zoned out, or emotionally shut down, or is slipping in & out of consciousness, or otherwise has body language that screams “I don’t want to be here”, they should probably stop whatever they’re doing, & check in with them verbally. Silence doesn’t equal consent.
& you can obtain verbal consent by talking dirty. It doesn’t have to be this clinical, overly polite parody people claim.
I just can’t see that as a bad thing.
I know a woman who consents to have sex with her husband because she loves him, but she does not enjoy it and is not enthusiastic about it. The enthusiasm requirement would make their sex rape. I’m sorry, women have an obligation to SPEAK. If you don’t want sex, say so. It’s called being an adult.
No. It doesn’t make their sex rape, unless one of them doesn’t consent. I have no idea how you would have reached that conclusion, especially after I specified in my comment that enthusiastic consent is a good standard to strive for primarily in *casual or new sexual relationships* when you haven’t learned the other person’s boundaries yet. That was kind of the whole point, so I apologize if I was somehow unclear.
Perhaps I should have also added that in long term relationships, both people will likely have sex they aren’t enthusiastic about, because they love their partner. That’s just a different situation. If 2 people consent to having sex, it’s not rape. Enthusiastic consent is great for some situations, but you can’t apply it to everything. Was I clear enough that time?
& yes, ideally people would speak up when they’re uncomfortable. & being pressured into sex you don’t want to have is not automatically equal to rape. But it can make you feel violated & dehumanized. & a decent person, in my opinion, would want to know they aren’t making a new partner feel that way.
Christ, enthusiastic consent is just about reading someone’s body language, & not fucking people who clearly don’t want to fuck you. How is that hard or scary or weird? I don’t get it. Maybe I’m crazy, but I think it’s a good idea to teach young people that if someone wants to have sex with you, you won’t have to trick or coerce them into bed. You won’t have to wear them down until they eventually stop saying no. Is it so weird to think that an absence of no is not a yes?
& again, this is JUST for new sex partners. Not long term relationships, or sex work.
BTW — I completely sympathize with the idea that one shouldn’t want to have sex with someone who isn’t responding. That doesn’t remove the obligation to speak. Even a mute person can violently mouth the word no.