Our cultural obsession with consent has some deep flaws. This article makes that plain and simple, without necessarily offering any answers, or even suggestions about where to go from here. Sex is, among other things, an expression of power and control.
Even though this article is pretty deep, I wanted it to go ten times deeper, into some of the fundamental differences between the male and female anatomy.
I’m adding this to my “Me Too” reading list. It complicates something I thought didn’t need to be so complicated. That’s always a good thing.
Oh my god. This is probably the most influential article I’ve read in a long, long time. It’s really long but worth it, in my opinion. Don’t know if I agree with everything the author posited but it helped me re-evaluate some of my preconceptions. Would love to hear other’s thoughts for sure.
There's a lot to process here. I enjoyed the philosophical discussions and thought experiments and definitely agree that it's a worthwhile read. I find the author's point of view needlessly extreme though. Why does the consent model need to be replaced rather than supplemented? Why can't it be used as a legal distinction while simultaneously encouraging further introspection in order to develop a model of what "good sex" means for you?
The answer for me is quite clear: you, the individual, don't actually matter.
There remains however the issue of how to address sexual practices pending revolution. Sexuality is an issue which communist organizations will have to address if they hope to advance feminist aims.
Individual agency isn't even acknowledged in this article. In fact, the author asserts that "there is not any lifestyle under patriarchy which is in itself subversive" which I find to be a radically disempowering statement. How is such an extreme form of collectivist thought not itself the ultimate form of domination over the individual?
Why does the consent model need to be replaced rather than supplemented?
I don’t think the essay has a political agenda. And I don’t think the author would advocate for throwing consent away. Rather, it’s a thought-provoking exercise to explore something (in this case, consent) from one angle (anti) and in depth (so many reasons to be anti) as a way to better understand it.
Your last paragraph is very interesting, but I think
Update (7/2/2020):
*I think I need to think more about patriarchy in general. Such high-level thinking is always challenging and fun, because it requires imagining a non-patriarchal world, something so wild/different that it’s like imagining aliens or having the ability to fly.
Our cultural obsession with consent has some deep flaws. This article makes that plain and simple, without necessarily offering any answers, or even suggestions about where to go from here. Sex is, among other things, an expression of power and control.
Even though this article is pretty deep, I wanted it to go ten times deeper, into some of the fundamental differences between the male and female anatomy.
I’m adding this to my “Me Too” reading list. It complicates something I thought didn’t need to be so complicated. That’s always a good thing.
Oh my god. This is probably the most influential article I’ve read in a long, long time. It’s really long but worth it, in my opinion. Don’t know if I agree with everything the author posited but it helped me re-evaluate some of my preconceptions. Would love to hear other’s thoughts for sure.
There's a lot to process here. I enjoyed the philosophical discussions and thought experiments and definitely agree that it's a worthwhile read. I find the author's point of view needlessly extreme though. Why does the consent model need to be replaced rather than supplemented? Why can't it be used as a legal distinction while simultaneously encouraging further introspection in order to develop a model of what "good sex" means for you?
The answer for me is quite clear: you, the individual, don't actually matter.
Individual agency isn't even acknowledged in this article. In fact, the author asserts that "there is not any lifestyle under patriarchy which is in itself subversive" which I find to be a radically disempowering statement. How is such an extreme form of collectivist thought not itself the ultimate form of domination over the individual?
I don’t think the essay has a political agenda. And I don’t think the author would advocate for throwing consent away. Rather, it’s a thought-provoking exercise to explore something (in this case, consent) from one angle (anti) and in depth (so many reasons to be anti) as a way to better understand it.
Your last paragraph is very interesting, but I think
*I think I need to think more about patriarchy in general. Such high-level thinking is always challenging and fun, because it requires imagining a non-patriarchal world, something so wild/different that it’s like imagining aliens or having the ability to fly.