There are just so many problems with "enthusiastic consent" in practice. No guy I know of would object to a woman being upfront about either wanting or not wanting sex. Men have traditionally pushed in the romance game for fewer mind fucks and more honesty. But you have to understand, these teasing games put a lot of power in the hands of the woman. You think those types of women who enjoy manipulating men with sex are going to give up that power for SJW ideology?
So now the problem of alcohol comes into it. How much alcohol invalidates consent? SJWs have been very careful to not place a limit. Of course, no amount of alcohol a man drinks invalidates HIS consent, and in the case of both being drunk, it seems fairly certain the SJWs would argue for the man to be held on rape charges using SaalPalani "men drink to become better rapists" reasoning. So we have to assume any alcohol at all in a woman's bloodstream invalidates "enthusiastic consent," no matter how enthusiastic and consensual she seems. Say goodbye to mixing alcohol and sex, you better be drier than an Abolitionist's grandma before you try any funny stuff, mister!
The next problem is retroactive removal of consent. Many SJWs seem to be arguing on Pharyngula and FTB that if a situation "feels" rapey, or you look back on it and it seems like "maybe it was all rapey and stuff", you can retroactively remove your consent and call it rape. Even if you consented at the time. The ultimate get out clause. All of us here know about the power of memory to feed us false information? The brain has no particular bias towards true information over pleasing falsehoods. Give someone permission to feed their victim complex and they'll recover all sorts of memories.
This whole enthusiastic consent thing is, I think, just another way for certain kinds of women to increase their sexual power over men, further punish male sexuality and enjoy all of the benefits of the party hard lifestyle without any of the risks. A man might drink himself blind stinking drunk and wake up the next morning with a disgusting woman who took advantage of him that night, but if she had even of a thimble full of alcohol, she'll be the one calling HIM a rapist. Most men in that situation would take it as a personal life lesson and move on. A SJW calls it a horrible rape.
DownThunder wrote:
I think there are just some women who need a constant emotional and legal safety net where they can blame someone the moment they experience something that isn't 100% to their expectation and satisfaction, where men and most other women manage to learn from sexual life experiences without needing to pawn off responsibility.
I agree. I also agree with your point (which I cut accidentally) that these SJW rules seem to be written by people who don't have sex, don't like sex, or have very strange sex.
And a lot of men refuse to play these CCC mind games. See, I don't have a problem with "enthusiastic consent" if it's just a game some SJWs want to play when they get fucked. But Crystal Clear Consent has the stench of a SJW idea that they want to make into law. This would, along with a weakening of the presumption of innocence in rape cases (which they are already pushing for) have the potential to cause great harm to any man who has sex with any woman he doesn't know too well. Even though I'm not a fan of so-called pick-up artists, making these ideas law would put every single PuA in prison for rape.
As for me, I suppose I'll start filming my bedroom with hidden cameras in case I ever bang a SJW.