Quote Originally Posted by Coidzor View Post
There are people who believe that men should basically interrogate women in order to verify their consent even when there's no cause for uncertainty. That's just a thing. An unfortunate thing, but a thing none the less.
There are people who believe that women are only having sex in order to get pregnant and extract that sweet, sweet child support dough.

Extremists are annoying, but let's not give them undue power.

I believe it's partially because of concerns about there being a non-zero chance that a woman could lie about consenting to have sex and show no signs of uncertainty due to active deception and hiding of said feelings, but where the guy is culpable for the woman's unfounded fear and is thus a rapist in the eyes of a not insignificant number of people who, if made aware of his identity, could ruin his life even if the law never got involved, because she felt pressured even with no inappropriate actions taken on his part or even the appearance of such being given.
No sexual paradigm on earth is gonna protect you if someone is actively and maliciously trying to deceive you. Just like no paradigm on earth is going to save me if someone is hell-bent on raping me.

I certainly hope so, but from what I've seen of how people are talking about it out in the wild, it's very much forgetting that women should also say no to sexual contact they don't want, partially due to the reaction against asking victims why they didn't say no or struggle or put up a fight, etc.
Pendulums and swings, I suppose.

Interestingly, the people I see push back the hardest against the responsibility to say no are also the people who will very clearly say yes and initiate their own sexual adventures. There seems to be a correlation there, which is interesting: those people actually should not have to say no, because the absence of enthusiasm is proof enough. But of course a stranger will not know that, and so we can't abandon “no means no” yet, though maybe in a few generations we already will have.

This kind of sentiment also communicates to men that there is no way they can win, or rather, lose gracefully, when rejected. If moving on with one's life and minimizing contact with someone who doesn't want it is retaliation, then there's no winning move except to have never initiated.
Excuse me, but if you're the kind of person who needs to shun someone if they reject you, you have absolutely no business hitting on anyone at work. Flirt and shun to your heart's content in social settings, but keep it out of situations where people's actual livelihood and career is affected.

That is not an extreme or unreasonable expectation.

Setting up a new cultural paradigm of requiring Enthusiastic Consent as the bare minimum would exert cultural pressures on subsequent generations to alter their way of thinking.

It could also lay the groundwork for changing what is necessary to make a charge of sexual misconduct able to make it to court and be tried.
That sounds pretty good, honestly. We've done that since the sexual revolution first started - y'know, back when “no” meant ”try harder” and spousal rape didn't exist.

My experience has been otherwise, both in terms of what demands I have encountered online and in terms of what I have dealt with from various partners.

Admittedly, less about whether they wanted to start a sexual relationship in the first place and more those times where they wanted to be seduced vs. just wanting to be left alone vs. wanting to interact but not being interested in or open towards things moving towards sex. Or other relationship woes pertaining to poor communication that aren't directly involved with the start or escalation of sexual encounters.
Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
The problem with enthusiastic consent is that there is, in some cultures, an expectation that things are not made explicit. There is reliance on body language, reading the mood etc. I believe that some people are put off by direct questions about whether another person wants to do x. This may be difficult for some of the commenters here to identify with if, in their culture courtship is culturally open and explicit, but Sivaris has commented that being from the South (southern USA, I presume) that things may work a little differently there.
This is very interesting, and I suppose it is telling that I hail from the country that first legalized pornography.

I hear you guys that coyness is still a thing that exists and therefore needs to be taken into account. Gotta admit, I tend to think of those paradigms as pretty harmful in general, partly because they do so little to prevent misunderstandings and assaults, and partly because they basically ask people to become mind-readers. But of course all those ideological considerations aren't worth much to someone who has to operate within those systems, except maybe as encouragement to challenge them.

I still think most of the check-in examples I gave work in a non-explicit paradigm (again, I cannot overstate the value of just pausing and looking someone in the eyes for signs of enthusiasm), but uh, I really am rubbish at all kinds of unstated communication, so: can someone smarter chime in on how to balance EC with not scaring off partners in an indirect communication paradigm? Or is the only option really just to read minds and pray that you don't accidentally assault someone someday?