Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
Mon Dec 25, 2017, 02:46 PM Dec 2017

RT: Establishing consent before sex is killing romance AND leads to forbidden kinds of sex.

Warning: RT is not a reliable news-source because they regularly lie by omission. Handle with care.
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/414219-sex-political-correctness-relations/



However, we should bear in mind also the (no less significant) fact that millions of people on a daily basis flirt and play the game of seduction, with the clear aim of finding a partner for making love. The result of the modern Western culture is that both sexes are expected to play an active role in this game.

When women dress provocatively to attract the male gaze or when they “objectify” themselves to seduce them, they don’t do it offering themselves as passive objects: instead they are the active agents of their own “objectification,” manipulating men, playing ambiguous games, including reserving the full right to step out of the game at any moment even if, to the male gaze, this appears in contradiction with previous “signals.”

...

Female sexual liberation is not just a puritan withdrawal from being “objectivized” (as a sexual object for men) but the right to actively play with self-objectivization, offering herself and withdrawing at will. But will it be still possible to proclaim these simple facts, or will the politically-correct pressure compel us to accompany all these games with some formal-legal proclamation (of consensuality, etc.)?

...

The underlying idea is how a sex act, if it to be cleansed of any suspicion of coercion, has to be declared, in advance, as a freely-made conscious decision of both participants – to put it in Lacanian terms, it has to be registered by the big Other, and inscribed into the symbolic order.


...

The rest is philosophical mumbo-jumbo whether it's really YOU who signs a contract of you sign a contract.

Followed by a complaint that talking about what you're okay with and what you're not okay with in terms of sex will kill the mood.

...

Thus, the rise of Political Correctness and the rise of violence are two sides of the same coin: insofar as the basic premise of Political Correctness is the reduction of sexuality to contractual mutual consent.

...

And after complaining how talking about consent will kill the mood, the author uses big fancy words to complain that too much talking about consent will lead to people enjoying sado-masochistic sex.





-----------------

All in all: A big article full of empty bla-bla which uses fancy words to confuse the extremist numb-nuts of the RT-comment-section into trash-talking political correctness by exploiting the "appeal to authority fallacy".

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»RT: Establishing consent ...