Share this comment
The question in any sexual situation is, "Do you want to be doing this?" and not "Do you consent to this?" Yes, "consent" has been captured, and it is treated contractually. If we place this into the context of a human exchange, we can end up with consent but not desire — which is consent subject to revocation after the fact.
In New York …
The question in any sexual situation is, "Do you want to be doing this?" and not "Do you consent to this?" Yes, "consent" has been captured, and it is treated contractually. If we place this into the context of a human exchange, we can end up with consent but not desire — which is consent subject to revocation after the fact.
In New York and other places, agreement to any contract can be revoked within 72 hours. So a "consent contract" is not appropriate to such a situation.
The concept is also seen as a ruse in that it is never fully engaged. For example, if sex can be revoked **during** a sexual act, the concept is meaningless. But "I don't want to be doing this" remains meaningful, and present-centered, and can contain "no."
I started to see "consent" as a scrim when the concept started to become "enthusiastic consent," which is wholly abstract. Can you imagine a "victim" saying to a jury, "Yes, I gave consent, but it was not enthusiastic, therefore, this was rape."
DESIRE is "enthusiastic consent."
So often consent is touted as a solution to gaslighting and victimhood. But as I am seeing here, if it is contractual, it can in essence promote these concepts as acceptable.
Let's put it this way: under the "consent" doctrine, no means no. But yes does not mean yes. Listen carefully to the discussions and you will hear that there is never really a yes. In my experience, the concept is a trap -- in particular, for men.