The idea of "enthusiastic consent" to sex is that silence is not consent, never has been and never will be. If you dont have enthusiastic consent, you don't have consent at all, and you shouldn't go forward. Consent is not simply the absence of a verbal 'no' or some form of physical resistance.
I was reading an article about a rape case in Ohio where the defense tried to say that because the victim, who was drunk and unresponsive at the time, didn't verbally say no to the assaults, she consented to what happened to her. That defense is nothing worse than despicable.
But while the idea of enthusiastic consent would be awesome in an ideal world, I'm wondering about those of us who probably would very rarely have sex if the requirement were to say yes with enthusiasm, instead of talking ourselves into dealing with it because we love our partners and know their needs. The idea of enthusiastic consent is a definite step forward in challenging the "rape culture" we live in. Obviously silence is not consent, but where's the line to be drawn? Putting up with sex because you know your partner wants it isn't rape, but where's the line to be drawn? What about that Anon post from a while back where the woman asked any of us if we ever mentally or emotionally left our bodies during sex so we wouldn't have to deal with it?
I'm just interested in different points of view.
Answer by Dardenella at 2:00 AM on Mar. 17, 2013
Recently Bumped in Debate
Michigan Pediatrician Refuses To Treat Baby Because It Has Two Mommies