Serious The problem with consent and sexual liberation

[IncelCatechumen]

I´m sympathetic towards regimes were sexual restraint is the norm, ex: clerical celibacy, sex before marriage, etc, etc. Virginity is partially valued in this systems since you have the expectation of having sex after marriage. It is even better when the telos of sex is not that of pleasure but of making offsprings (Saint Augustine makes an identity between pleasure during sex and sin, for instance).

Yet, this system generated a series of issues that imploded in the 60s. It seem that we are not medically or instrumentally capable of reinforcing that set of values anymore, we have abortions, pills, and contraceptives in masse, which makes any idea of return a mere utopia. There were also subjective problems with that system in regards to how we deal we our desires. Yet, sexual liberation is at the root cause of the issues that we currently have: without sexual liberation that idea of gays or trans appears as a mere ghost. The generalization of pornography as well is an issue that helps in the accentuation of all ours problems: sexual frustration, alienation, and odd expectations regarding sex life.

Certain systems of sexual restraint at least recognized that the issue is sex, which is why they´re "better" than our current sexually liberatory regime who posits "consent" as the stone of sex while simultaneously promoting "pleasure." Yet, the principle of pleasure is different from the principle of consent, in some cases they can even be mutually exclusive (particularly for those foids and males that are socialized through pornography, which basically promotes a rapist conception of sex to the masses). This also ignores that consent is a weak normative principle: self-determination is a chimera and desire is socially enforced: a 19th century women would not have thought of oral or anal sex (unless they were literal whores). It also ignores that consent can also be vicious, degradation or cnc are not "moral" sexual practices at all, even if they are technically consensual. Eating shit and having "consensual" cannibalistic practices is not ethical, and so on.

 

[ResidentHell]

Good observation OP. Consent is a grey area, because the circumstances under which men & women have sexual interactions in the physical world, can't easily be determined in line with "consent" by reasonable benchmark, except for when they are strangers who abruptly came into sexual contact with each other

When stuff like "rape" and "non-consensual sex" can be LARPed by "consenting adults" in the form of CNC, it wouldn't be easy to tell at any point during the sexual activity that the person who's playing the "victim" or "powerless" role doesn't want to continue. Unless the victim roleplayer prepares a "pull-out signal" to signal when they don't want to continue

The absence of consent is not an absolute standard for determining whether or not sexual assault has occurred. From a logical perspective, a female doesn't necessarily have to give consent to a person in order for her to desire sex from that same person. Meaning in theory its possible for a man to "unconsensually" have sex with a female without "raping" them, provided the female already had the desire to engage in sexual acts with them in advance

Also the condition of "consent" is prone to arbitrary changes in accordance with the female's emotional stance. Through self-manipulation or mental gymnastics, a female who may or may not have had "consensual sex" with someone, could later become convinced, either by herself or by someone else, that she was actually raped. For example, a female could be fucked by a man without "explicitly giving him consent", but the following day she changes her emotional stance, and concludes she was "raped" or "sexually contacted against her will", even though she may have not felt this way in the moment when she was being sexually touched