"The idea essentially being that your partner --generally being the woman in particular in these scenarios-- has to look and sound like she 'wants it', explicitly and repeatedly so."
People usually DO look and sound like they want it - when they actually do.
"The idea essentially being that your partner --generally being the woman in particular in these scenarios-- has to look and sound like she 'wants it', explicitly and repeatedly so."
People usually DO look and sound like they want it - when they actually do.
You're merely pointing out the problem. 'Looking like you want it' is not a quantifiable, definable metric. It differs between people, because everyone responds differently. There is no objective plurality in response to sexual pleasure that can be used as a baseline. "When they actually do", on the other hand, is definable. It is simply one consenting to sex.
Those who believe in "enthusiastic consent" objectify women as pornographic objects, because how else are you supposed to show enthusiastic consent if not through a pornographic caricature? It's repulsive, and strips people of personal authentic expression.
You're only proving my point by crudely insulting me. It's quite sad how you're unable to conceive of pornography in an abstract, philosophical manner.
Either show an objective measure of what it means to 'want it', or don't bother replying to me. You obviously cannot, since no such standard exists that applies to all people.
Everyone enjoys sex in their own way, so-called "enthusiastic consent" forces women to behave in a particular, inauthentic manner that objectifies them. You consent to sex initially, and request to "stop" if it becomes uncomfortable or undesirable. Everything in between is up to the individual.
That's true, and normal, considerate behaviour towards your partner, and also not what I'm talking about.
Here's what I mean. When people have spoken to me about enthusiastic consent, they're not bringing up asking your partner in the heat of the moment if it's okay to touch here or there, to do this or that. What they're talking about is one's behaviour during the actual sex itself. "Wanting it", in an overly exaggerated manner to signal one's continued consent. That is obviously ridiculous, and relies on pornographic caricature which by nature objectifies people, women in particular. That's quite different from momentarily asking if they're okay with switching to a different position.
"The idea essentially being that your partner --generally being the woman in particular in these scenarios-- has to look and sound like she 'wants it', explicitly and repeatedly so."
People usually DO look and sound like they want it - when they actually do.
You're merely pointing out the problem. 'Looking like you want it' is not a quantifiable, definable metric. It differs between people, because everyone responds differently. There is no objective plurality in response to sexual pleasure that can be used as a baseline. "When they actually do", on the other hand, is definable. It is simply one consenting to sex.
Those who believe in "enthusiastic consent" objectify women as pornographic objects, because how else are you supposed to show enthusiastic consent if not through a pornographic caricature? It's repulsive, and strips people of personal authentic expression.
"how else are you supposed to show enthusiastic consent if not through a pornographic caricature?"
--- The porn-adled brain can't think of "how else".
" It is simply one consenting to sex."
--- Sex changes throughout so continuous communication is needed throughout.
"The porn-adled brain can't think of "how else"."
You're only proving my point by crudely insulting me. It's quite sad how you're unable to conceive of pornography in an abstract, philosophical manner.
Either show an objective measure of what it means to 'want it', or don't bother replying to me. You obviously cannot, since no such standard exists that applies to all people.
Everyone enjoys sex in their own way, so-called "enthusiastic consent" forces women to behave in a particular, inauthentic manner that objectifies them. You consent to sex initially, and request to "stop" if it becomes uncomfortable or undesirable. Everything in between is up to the individual.
Come on now. People have to ask their partners along the way, not just slip a finger or something else in his butt and then wait for the "no"..
That's true, and normal, considerate behaviour towards your partner, and also not what I'm talking about.
Here's what I mean. When people have spoken to me about enthusiastic consent, they're not bringing up asking your partner in the heat of the moment if it's okay to touch here or there, to do this or that. What they're talking about is one's behaviour during the actual sex itself. "Wanting it", in an overly exaggerated manner to signal one's continued consent. That is obviously ridiculous, and relies on pornographic caricature which by nature objectifies people, women in particular. That's quite different from momentarily asking if they're okay with switching to a different position.