I think it's beyond utopian. It seems ahistorical, abiological.

Has there ever been a single culture that is an example feminist consent?

Is there even a single species that is an example of feminist consent?

What historically does our choice of fiction, does women's choice of fiction say about most women's desires for feminist consent?

What do PET scans, penile plethysmograph, vaginal plethysmograph, pulse rates, etc., which try to measure what excites us say about our preference for feminist consent?

It seems beyond utopian, it seems unrealistic, impossible, and even worse, boring and not what most adults want.

And as you both point out, it seems profoundly infantilizing of women.

If there's no serious threat of harm, ie "If you don't do me I'll kill you/your baby" or even the more gray "If you don't do me I'll ruin you financially/send you to prison/other horrible life changing thing", then it isn't rape.

You could still be a victim, you could still be harmed, you could still be a lot of things. The behavior of the other party could still be bad.

But it isn't rape.

OK Jerry you're sounding quite creepy, are you saying women shouldn't consent and rape should be legal because we like to read novels about rape? Because that's what your post sounds like... please tell me I'm reading it wrong.

If all of life were like feminist consent . . .

NicoleK, do I have your consent to talk to you?

NicoleK, do I have your consent to ask you why you think its creepy to acknowledge reality?

NicoleK, do I have your consent to voice my opinion that you are being deliberately obtuse and comparing criminal acts to fantasy in order to muddy the waters in that stopping to ask for consent at every tenth seconds is not something women find attractive?

Thank you luj!

And yes Nicole, I am saying that since you like to read even just an occasional piece of fiction about rape, that the notion that from here on to the end of eternity feminist consent for 100% of all acts is ludicrous on its face and not at all something humankind, womankind or even just you actually want.

So yes, you are reading it wrong, and I don't how any reasonable reader could read it as you do. But thanks for the obligatory feminist creep shaming babe, alienating the person you are talking to with name calling (and especially by calling them a creep) is a good way to promote dialog and understanding.

Jeez.

Thanks for clarifying, I did read it wrong, I read it as you were saying something different than you were. i thought you were saying you didn't need feminists to consent tosex which sounded insane. But if Im now teading cprrectly what you are calling feminist consent is what kids these days are calling affirmative consent? Apologies, i misunderstood

I can see where the little girls can get confused when the adults in the house are saying "Go for it!". You can scrape your knees by running too fast.

per Gloria Steinem:

"A liberated woman is one who has sex before marriage and a job after."

"To say 'radical feminist' is only a way of indicating that I believe the sexual caste system is a root of race and class and other divisions."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/gloria_steinem.html

It's no wonder progressive feminists have a soft spot for radical islam, when both ideologies obviously perceive women as infantile.

Is there even a single species that is an example of feminist consent?

Most animals don't copulate unless the female is in heat. They don't fuck as a pastime, it's serious business of creating more of the critter. Birds are much the same.

However, if you've ever watched a rooster mate a hen, it looks and sounds pretty violent. He jumps on top, holds her down, and does his thing with much squawking.

NicoleK, please don't forget that it DOES count as rape if he doesn't say anything but he's clearly fighting to hold her down and she's clearly trying to fight him off - and usually yelling "no" or "stop" or "fire."

Trouble is, there are still serious reasons why she might not fight - and then the public loses sympathy when it shouldn't. For example, a teen girl might go to a boy's room with the intent of having sex and then change her mind once she's inside - but she also might realize, too late, that he's the angry macho type who considers it a crime for a girl to change her mind that late, even though of course it isn't, so besides saying "no, please don't let's" she may well be wise not to try to fight him off - but later, she won't tell the jury that she EVER thought of having sex, because, again, she will fear that the jury will think that her "breach of etiquette" was practically a crime.

I'm sorry jerry, NicoleK.

Neither of you gained consent to talk to one another, both of you are guilty of harassment.

"I think it's beyond utopian. It seems ahistorical, abiological."

It's even worse than that. It's defined to be an unresolvable dilemma. Consider: what does sexual desire, or any other form of desire, do? It clouds the mind. That's one of its purposes. But the postmodern feminist standard maintains that a woman cannot give consent to sex unless her mind is perfectly clear of anything that might influence her decision in the "yes" direction. The implication is, that includes desire itself. A woman can consent to sex only when she has no desire for it!. Of course, this is paradoxical; it's the equivalent of going to a restaurant, ordering something that you don't like, and eating it. Nobody does that because there is no motivation.

While this may yet be another case of comment rape, I like the point you make Cousin Dave, I think I'll steal it.

(Three strikes law be damned!)

Hmm, what gets amputated when you steal a comment in Saudi Arabia?

Cathy Young: "There was the time when, 19 and naïve, I was guilt-tripped into entirely unwanted physical intimacies with a much older married man."

No shit? Just curious - exactly how does an old man guilt trip a 19 year old into physical intimacies?

"She calls the "quest for perfect consent" "profoundly utopian," and she's right."

Well if we were being reasonable, yeah, probably, sure.

But occasionally, my unreasonable side says something like: "that's not actually their intention, their intention is power."

These are the same people that are carping about privilege and power structures, right? Seems to indicate what game they are playing, doesn't it?
If they can eventually get people to cede control over the thinking about this, as they have done in the CA Uni system, eventually they will make it all but impossible to continue mating as we have.

Their ability to dissemble on what consent is, and to make some kinds of consent retroactively revokable, will allow all sorts of mating behaviors that will make most guys opt out.

Meaning that the few who opt in, are that much more easily controlled.

And they will likely keep all definitions vague and nebulous, so that everything is a matter of opinion... like the idea that a crime doesn't require evidence.

So that's all my cynical self... sometimes people will tell you precisely what they are planning but we often ignore it, if it seems too outrageous.

Constantly having to say "can I move my hand 5 centimeters to the left?"
IS OUTRAGEOUS, but it speaks volumes on what each little logical step will be...

Until you end up in a dystopia you didn't want to go to.

There's been plenty of times I've slept with a guy because quite frankly it seemed easier than saying no (in Memoirs of a Geisha parlance, I turned my head and took my shot) but it was not rape. It was me choosing to have sex. Rape is someone physically overpowering you, not wearing you down with "please's". It's someone having sex with you when you are unconscious, not when you wake up and realize he wasn't as cute as tipsy-you thought he was. They've just about completely eliminated all true meaning from the word rape.

And it isn't only women who have sex that they regret later. Just sayin'.

"personal responsibility feminism"

That is an oxymoronic phrase -- with the emphasis on moronic. Feminism and the concept of personal responsibility are mutually exclusive.