SUMMARY: Explicitly articulated, incremental or progressive affirmation of consent in an evolving situation is widely promoted as a necessary condition of permissible conduct in sexual relations. Here I argue that the continuous-affirmative standard of consent is absurdly demanding and legally risky even for stable intimate partnerships. Given enough time, chance and natural spontaneity would have it that even the most diligent proponent of the new doctrine, male or female, could be found guilty of sexual assault against his or her partner. The purpose of the new ideology about sexual consent seems to be to create conditions where men could be found guilty of rape whenever a woman desires.

LINK: https://culturalanalysis.net/2017/12/02/semantogymnastics-about-microconsent/

LESSONS LEARNED:

  • The idea that sexual consent cannot be given (by women?) while intoxicated creates a double standard with respect to other areas where consent would always entail culpability (intoxication is not an acceptable excuse).

  • A double standard seems to exist about how we (men) ought to be limited by the requirement of consent in private, especially sexual relations, and how the requirement of consent can protect a person from unwanted or unreasonable treatment by the government or other corporate entities.

  • Explicitly articulated consent in every situation and at every step of