Tit for tat: A standard advocated is a standard owed.

Feminists advocate enthusiastic, spoken consent as the only acceptable standard by which female consent during a heterosexual encounter may be accurately inferred. According to their expressed rhetoric, nothing else a woman does matters unless her male partner receives adamant verbal confirmation. This isn't just applied to style of dress, facial expressions, and flirtatious speech. The woman with her hand down her partner's pants isn't considered to have consented to any response from him unless she tells him so in no uncertain terms. Within this mentality, a man's consent is assumed, partly on the basis of the same behaviors feminists claim don't indicate consent from a woman, but mostly just because he's a man.

What does that mean for men? When a man's consent is presumed a given, while everything a woman may do to communicate consent is to be ignored if she doesn't also expressly speak it, where does that leave men? Feminists seem to think it knocks them down a peg, providing women with some new level of control over heterosexual interaction, requiring of men a most solicitous approach in order to avoid being accused of brutal intent.

It doesn't.

Women already had that control, in the male-seeker, female-gatekeeper model of sexual interaction. What the enthusiastic consent standard really does is take away some of the power that accompanies the gatekeeper role. In that role, women had the benefit of receiving sexual attention without having to take the risk of facing direct rejection to obtain it. Until now, the onus has been primarily on men; to initiate, to earn a woman's attention, and to hold it by continuing to impress her and following her rules of engagement. If a woman wasn't satisfied with what a man had to offer, she had the power of "NO" to end the encounter. If she wanted to continue receiving interest-driven romantic attention, she didn't have to match his effort or his show of interest. A man who receives only subtle hints and insinuation of acceptance will usually strive harder to please his partner. Instead of placing men at a greater disadvantage, the enthusiastic consent standard makes socially unacceptable the female use of tacit but unenthusiastic approval to make their male partners jump through hoops to earn desired affection.

The thing is, just because you're told that you're responsible for the interaction, that your consent is presumed given, doesn't mean you have to give your consent. While feminists advocate their enthusiastic consent model as if only women have the power of "NO," what this really does is give you reason to exercise that same power when you are not comfortable or satisfied with the dynamics of an encounter.

Men, with this advocacy, feminists are telling you that in the dating arena, women who want sex from you owe you open, honest, and unmistakable communication. Advocacy for the enthusiastic consent standard is effectively free license for men to stop shouldering all of the responsibility for the experiences of both parties in any given romantic encounter. Don't settle for some lazy scumbag who won't communicate with you, won't show any clear interest, expects you to jump through hoops, expects you to chase her without encouragement, and leaves you wondering if your advances have been accepted or not. Don't tolerate getting treated like a beggar or a slave instead of a romantic interest. If the person you're with cannot afford you the human dignity to treat you as, and act as, an equal partner, find someone else who will.

If the onus placed on men is going to be "all heterosexual sex without enthusiastic female consent may be defined as male-on-female rape," then men have the right to expect and require as a condition of male consent to sex that female consent always be enthusiastic - meaning a woman gets none of your attention, none of your effort, and no intimate contact with you unless she lets you know in unmistakable terms, and continues to reinforce the message the whole time, that she wants those things from you, and is willing to offer you the same in return. If she isn't putting as much effort and enthusiasm as you are into the whole encounter, she's not worth your time, not worth risking your heart, and certainly not worth risking your freedom. If consent that is not enthusiastic is not consent, then interest that is not enthusiastic is not interest.

After all, in the current environment, if you don't have that reassurance, you could be considered guilty of rape despite a complete lack of intent to contravene or ignore your partner's choice in the matter, despite participation by your partner, despite having no way of determining that such an accusation might be leveled against you. It's a matter of self-defense. You must treat every demure, shy, or retiring partner as Schrodinger's false accuser, and require the same level of enthusiastic participation from her as you are offering in order to solve the dilemma of not really knowing what is on her mind. It won't protect you from 100% of false accusations, but it will reduce the chance that it can be argued that you didn't get real consent, and are therefore guilty of a crime.

From now on, you should only involve yourself sexually with women who are confident and vocal about wanting intimate contact with you. No matter how many women you talk to, flirt with, hang out with, go out with, whatever... no matter how many hints are being dropped, no matter what the body language is, none of it is enough to ensure that your end of the interaction won't be considered an act of rape... so you now have the right to expect a woman to openly and without hesitation tell you what she wants - or she has no right to expect to receive what she wants from you. If she's not willing to communicate that openly with you, then she hasn't done enough to earn your trust as a sex partner.

You should be expecting that anyway - if you're going to be expected to give someone your attention, put your heart on the line, to impress, take the risk of rejection, and if not rejected, to provide pleasure... you have the right to know without the slightest doubt whether she's into you, or averse to the interaction. You deserve better than to be ignored throughout a sexual encounter. You should expect to be afforded an equal right to be treated as a wanted and interesting partner. You should expect to be offered an equal experience of demonstrated intent to please and impress. You are no less deserving of that than your partner, and if you're not being offered that equal treatment, you're being used and abused. Women who let you wonder, act okay with the situation, and then later complain about your side of the interaction without ever having given you a clue, are as abusive as women who hit you. No one has the right to expect you to put up with that.

Female readers, this part is for you:
If what I have said offends you because you're shy, and you don't want to have to be vocal, don't tell me. Tell your feminist friends, who have advocated for a social attitude condemning men for assuming that women's overt actions indicate our intent. That assertion has erased the definition of our overt actions as a form of communication, creating the requirement that communication be verbal.

The same goes to those who prefer to be romanced. If this pisses you off, don't tell me. Tell your feminist friends who have asserted that male courtship behavior is predatory, and consent resulting from it isn't consent. By defining male pursuit as predatory, feminist advocates have placed the onus on women to seek and maintain romantic interaction. You no longer have the right to expect to be courted for your attention, because men have been told that offering you that is an abuse.

Feminists have abolished the "men pursue, women are pursued" tradition of dating. One way or another, it's up to you to get off of your asses and do something about it: Either go with the new rules, and become equally responsible for the effort and risk that go into making your dating life and your sex life happen... or protest the feminist position on the topic, and their effort to impose their political agenda on you. One way or another, you're going to have to stop being a shrinking violent, because feminism has made interacting with you too much of a risk for the modern man.

By demanding that, regardless of physical behavior, "no" be the default assumption without your verbal confirmation, feminism is demanding that society not differentiate between the guy who ignores "no" and the guy whose date participated in an encounter and then later wished she hadn't. If your participation is not equal, you're asking your partner to risk a rape charge just to be with you. That's a hell of a demand to make, and frankly, there is not a person on earth whose attention is worth that risk. Therefore, women, it is your responsibility to ensure that any man you're with knows without question exactly what you want from the encounter, and to give as good as you get. You no longer have the right to sit back and expect a man to impress you, while you attempt to maintain an air of demure, modest propriety. If you're shy, if you prefer a traditional approach, if you like to be romanced... well, tough shit. It's the 21st century now, and you're outdated.

In the context of a modern, feminist-dictated dating environment, if you don't offer equal participation and equal enthusiasm in a sexual relationship, you're not an equal partner. If you don't have the courage and consideration for your partner to provide a clear indication of your intentions and desires, you don't deserve his attention.

Prior to the feminist influence on the sexual revolution, when it was expected that women act demure, and men pursue, there might have been an excuse for that in the context of a newer relationship.
There is no such excuse now. Any woman who expects to sit back and let her partner make all of the advances, and all of the connections, including the mental connection "I'm getting a positive response" or "this probably means no," is lazy and selfish... in fact, one could even argue that doing so is an act of using her partner as an interactive sex toy, instead of participating in an intimate and mutually enjoyable experience.

If receipt of enthusiastic consent is the standard, then we owe it to our partners to make our responses to them as openly communicative as are their responses to us. Think about this: When was the last time you had sex with a man who did not offer you enthusiastic consent? What makes you think you deserve that from him, if you're not going to offer him the same in return?

If you look at the feminist take on sexual relationships from a human rights perspective, you have to consider the possibility that for generations, women have been emotionally abusing men. It has been traditional for us to essentially withhold interest and affection until sufficiently impressed, yet many men face the experience of being castigated for their efforts. What a catch-22 for men, told by women that they're not doing their job as men if they do not enthusiastically and impressively pursue us... but if they try when they're unwanted, they're predatory and domineering. What a manipulative, abusive behavior our sex has exhibited. And beyond that, traditionally, it hasn't even been up to us to offer the other side of the coin - when we are impressed, we're not expected to be as demonstrative in our communication of that as we are when we communicate rejection. Coyly batting one's eyelashes and fidgeting a lot has nowhere near the level of immediate communicative impact as a slap across the face. Our gender's priority has been to communicate the negative, but make men wander a loaded maze of guesswork and potential pitfalls when the response is positive. Now, feminism is telling men on our behalf that even positive responses may be negative unless they're dramatic and obsessively defined. In doing so, feminism has made it our responsibility as women to communicate the positive as dramatically and clearly as we do the negative.

This is my challenge to other women - it's not up to others to obtain enthusiastic consent from you. It's not a potential partner's responsibility to persuade you. In today's environment, no one owes you their attention, or regard. It's your job to earn that and show your intended partner your interest. It's your job to make it clear when sexual attention and contact is something you want... and if you don't do that, you have no right to complain when you don't receive it. In fact, given the current political and legal environment, participating in a sex act with a partner to whom you have not demonstrated and spoken enthusiastic consent should be considered an act of psychological abuse.

After all, if you try to continue the old 'men pursue, women are persuaded' method of initiation and interaction, in doing so, you will have demanded that your partner give you all of the benefits, while you give your partner none of the reassurance. You've pushed upon your partner all of the risk involved in the interaction, while offering none of the rewards. That's a shameful way to treat any person.

Remember, a requirement for communication goes both ways. If men are to be expected to obtain communication, women must be equally expected to provide it. By asserting that men may be expected to assume that anything a woman has not directly and clearly requested is unwanted, feminists have given men license to assume that women don't want anything until it has been directly and clearly requested. They haven't just placed the greater burden on men to obtain enthusiastic consent, or be guilty of rape. They've placed an equal burden on women to be enthusiastic, or go without sexual intimacy.

Effeminition: Consent

One of the most convoluted, fickle, and hypocritical aspects of feminist dogma is the variety of stated positions on sexual ethics and accepted sexual norms. This is an area where feminism just can't seem to make up its collective mind whether to claim authority or affliction. Instead, advocacy and dissertation on various points within the topic wanders all over the grid, depending on which answer to the subtopic best lends itself to achieving the desired rights to responsibility ratio of all to none.    

This is blatantly evidenced by feminism's meandering promulgation of advocated social and legal rules governing consent to sexual contact.

Early on it was argued that women were being held back from experiencing sexual equality by falsely applied moral and social rules. The assertion was that women, as independent adults, are entitled to pursue sexual gratification in the same manner and with the same moral abandon attributed to the behavior of men. The truly liberated woman, it was argued, has every right to casually partake of the smorgasbord of available partners at her leisure, without fear of loss of reputation or status as a result. Society has no right to tie morality to one gender. Therefore, in the name of equal rights, women must be allowed to be equally promiscuous. One tangent to this is condemnation of the allegedly male practice of "slut shaming" (castigation and devaluing of females who engage in casual sex.) The label of slut shaming may be used honestly, as in response to the treatment by either sex of female participation in casual sex as misbehavior, or it may be abused, as in response to the treatment of female cheating on a male partner as mistreatment of the male partner. 

Contrasting the sexually liberated woman position is the gatekeeper-to-pursuit position. This depends on the treatment of women as perpetually reluctant and men as perpetually ambitious toward sexual interaction. For this treatment, the hard-won position of female independence and entitlement to obtain pleasure is abandoned in favor of that of "gatekeeper" to the male's role as purser of sexual gratification. Despite claiming privilege and power under the sexual freedom umbrella, the gatekeeper-to-pursuit position designates gratification as a commodity, women as proprietary owners who must always be persuaded, and men as forever seekers who are required to persuade. It leaves no room for the idea that the female might desire gratification and therefore choose to initiate, or that the male may not desire contact with a specific female or at a given time. Males are assumed to be in a constant state of implied consent, based on that assumption of perpetual sexual ambition, combined with a denial that they may have a standard of attraction. This combination is used to excuse women from ever having to obtain male consent, while simultaneously requiring men to always obtain female consent for sexual interaction.

In the dating arena, this has led to an environment of expectation wherein men must ask permission for each and every step along the path between introduction and orgasm, handling their partners' supposedly cripplingly fragile emotional and mental states as if they are courting soap bubbles which might burst and expire upon the slightest deviation from The Rules.

Complicating this environment is the treatment of the female as helpless. It is never to be expected that the woman might voice her feelings in the event that a male's advances are unwanted. The treatment of women as capable of self-assertion would rob the female participant of her freedom from responsibility for her own sexual behavior. Therefore, it must be assumed that the otherwise strong and liberated woman's disabling psychological weakness may prevent her from verbally refusing sex. This leads to the capability among women to use withholding information to transfer the responsibility for their own sexual decisions to their partners. Simply by not speaking up, a woman may imply consent through physical reciprocity, while reserving the right to later claim defilement and injury due to lack of stated consent.

This is taken to the extreme in the choice by mainstream feminists to treat even slight intoxication as an incapacitating condition when determining female ability to consent. While it is accepted that society, and in particular, the legal system, will hold any individual responsible for his or her intoxicated actions in any other area of behavior from drunk dialing to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, feminist advocacy expresses the expectation that women who have consumed any alcohol will be exempt from responsibility for choices they make related to sexual interaction.

The gatekeeper-to-pursuit argument also uses the assignment of sexual roles to impose the status of consent upon males without offering them a choice. In fact, domestic abuse victim advocacy returns entitlement to women by treating a man's refusal to consent to sex as an act of abuse against his female partner. This advocacy applies the label "withholding sex" to rob men of consent agency, effectively requiring them to perform upon demand.

The contrast among these assertions appears senseless as it ranges from treating women as proactive and empowered to treating women as withering and powerless. Until one looks at the larger goal which is achieved by doing this dance, it is difficult to understand why a political faction would handicap itself in this manner. After all, the contradicting arguments are easily pointed out and played against each other. Why, then, are they used this way?

The answer is in how this combination may support the use of abuse and rape labeling to control every nuance of male-female relationships. Under feminist doctrine, women have the right of indiscretion with impunity coupled with proprietary ownership of consent agency and an implied entitlement to male consent. Be it "No" or be it "Now," feminism demands immediate obedience by males without question. The combination denies male choice under the guise of female empowerment, while simultaneously placing every responsibility related to interaction squarely upon the shoulders of the man and enabling the woman to criminalize his part in the experience at any time, including after the fact. The ability to retroactively apply the abuse label or the rape label is a powerful weapon, with applications ranging from excusing oneself from relationship rules to vengeance following a break-up to leverage in custody and property disputes.

Feminist activism has made the terms rape and abuse into sacred and untouchable concepts, the wielding of which may be used to constrict the options of an opponent. To varying degrees, it has become socially and even legally unacceptable to question the veracity of any such allegation no matter how wild it is or how sparse the evidence. In this context, having license to apply those terms to circumstances which are devoid of genuine injury, exploitation, or assault provides women with an incredibly destructive legal force; the power to assert, and not be contradicted; to demand, and not be denied. These rules of engagement which feminism applies to sex and relationships are not about protecting women from victimization at the hands of men. They are designed to provide women with a trump card for use in the pursuit of female power over men.


Also see the response post to the "fan" who copied the text of this post in its entirety, (but not the cartoon) then re-posted it in his own blog intertwined with straw man arguments and denial.