On The Soft Tyranny Of “Enthusiastic Consent.”

On the Soft Tyranny of “Enthusiastic Consent.”

Before I launch into my main point, I want to make one thing absolutely clear; no one should ever shame anyone for being enthusiastic about something. People who take the time to denigrate enthusiastic people for their joy are simply scummy people. My point, as I hope I make clear, is that we shouldn’t expect enthusiasm as a criterion for consent or for kinky play because it is not a helpful standard and, in my opinion, can lead to unintended consequences that undermine the whole point of consent in the first place.

For those who may not know, “enthusiastic consent” has become a “go to” concept for discussions of consent. The concept appears to derive from the “yes means yes” model of consent. “Yes means yes” is obviously a response to and (in a way) an expansion of “no means no,” and is intended to be a guard against the abhorrent “well, they didn’t say ‘no’” defense to rape and other forms of sexual assault (among other valid purposes).

The difficulty is that “yes means yes” is actually an “affirmative consent” model, and not an “enthusiastic consent” model, and I believe that this is a distinction with a HUGE difference.

Often, “enthusiastic consent” is used as a normative standard, with an admonition that people shouldn’t play unless the other person you’re negotiating with is exhibiting “enthusiastic consent.” I’ve even seen people say “I refuse to play with someone unless they are enthusiastic about the play.”

I think that that standard is both unnecessary and suborns the very purpose of consent.

Enthusiasm is defined as “intense and eager enjoyment, interest, or approval.” And, to me and to many others, it has connotations of keenness, fervor, passion, zeal, and wholeheartedness. In short, “enthusiasm” contains an implication that the person consenting is free of doubt. At least, for me, I don’t associate “enthusiasm” with nervousness or uncertainty. I am a deeply analytical person, and I am always second-guessing myself, which means that I am probably not ever going to be enthusiastic about anything the first time, and probably not the second through fifth times I try something.

By making “enthusiasm” the necessary standard before beginning play, I think a person risks sending the message that they are not interested in hearing doubts or questions.

Consider the position of a relatively new person to the scene thinking about entering negotiation with an experienced person who has openly stated that they insist on “enthusiastic consent.” If the new person has doubts about the particular play they’re seeking or about a field of kink in general, they are likely to swallow their doubts so as not to come off as unenthusiastic and therefore miss asking important questions.

Alternatively, they are likely to suffer from a form of imposter syndrome, where they think that everyone else must not have these doubts or questions, and that there is something wrong with them.

Either way, the insistence on enthusiastic consent is liable to have a coercive effect, preventing free and open negotiation.

A secondary problem with the insistence on “enthusiasm” as a benchmark for concluding a negotiation is that enthusiasm is judged by externalities. In other words, if a person insists on “enthusiastic consent” then there is going to be consent that might be judged “not enthusiastic enough.” Which means that what is supposed to be a safeguard for ensuring consent can be a way for more experienced people to subvert someone’s agency (not to mention provide an avenue for gaslighting, as if we needed another). (There is also an argument that insisting on enthusiastic consent can be ablist, insofar as it disadavantages people with types of depression or on certain areas of the autism spectrum who struggle with reading or conveying emotions. Also, for people who are grey/ace, if the rubric is that only enthusiastic consent “counts,” then people who are, by nature, unenthusiastic about sexual relations, can be perceived as never “truly” being able to consent to sexual activities. This also seems wrong.)

While I’ve tried to be power-dynamic neutral in these descriptions, I do think that the insistence on “enthusiastic consent” is more prevalent among tops and works primarily to the detriment of bottoms. It provides a way for tops to “know better” than bottoms, and, more to the point, to tell a bottom that their consent, their agency is not enough.

I believe that the issue is cast in stark relief by this fact: enthusiasm is objectively less important than informed consent. It is objectively less important than otherwise uncoerced consent. It is objectively less important than explicit, express consent.

For example, if I know next to nothing about rope play, but I’ve seen a cool coffee-table book once and am a first-timer at a dungeon, can I give enthusiastic consent to an upside-down neck suspension? Sure. I can be enthusiastic as all hell. But is it “knowing”? No, it is not. It’s a system, therefore, that is prone to abuse.

After all, what we have developed is a method by which unethical tops (and other players) can use “enthusiasm” as an excuse for predatory behavior. We’ve gone from “but they said ‘yes,’” to “but they were enthusiastic when they said ‘yes,’” while ignoring insisting on an inquiry that that the people involved in the particular scene were “knowledgeable,” “uncoerced,” and “express” in their consent. I personally hope for a cultural shift that focuses less on the former and more on the latter.

By all means, follow your gut. Tops and bottoms have a right to say no to a scene for any or no reason at all. If you think there is something off about a prospective play partner, by all means, decline the scene. But do not set a standard that is coercive and leads to unbalanced negotiation. What we need is more of a focus on ensuring that everyone involved with a scene is knowledgeable about the risks before consenting, not unduly influenced by badgering or other pressures when consenting, and expressly agreeing to the substance and limits of the scene. All of that, in my view, can be done with doubt and with nerves, and it is still valid consent. Remove any one of those elements, and all the enthusiasm in the world will not save the broken scene that results.

More Posts from Horsecatfairybunny and Others

horsecatfairybunny

3 months ago

seeing straight men be disgusted by booktok smut recommenders has actually radicalized me to the side of booktok smut recommenders. girls your taste may be atrocious but i will never disparage you for exposing mainstream discourse to the concept of soaking through your underwear. spent my whole life listening to men talk about penises it’s about time they get jumpscared by women talking about pussy in crude detail on social media. go forth and goon my warriors

247K notes View Post

horsecatfairybunny

1 year ago

Basically, our reaction to a walrus knocking:

John Mulaney saying "I didn't know he knew how to do that"

A fairy knocking:

John Mulaney saying "You know those days when you're like, "This might as well happen"?"

38K notes View Post

horsecatfairybunny

9 months ago

Vorkosigan Saga fanfic where Mark and Kareen, sometime post-Cryoburn, find out that they’ve actually been legally married for years.

I’m not writing it, but here’s the bullet points:

like 15 years ago, they bought a house in Vorwhatever District for tax purposes. As business partners, they had to joint-sign the papers.

today, they receive a form letter in the mail informing them that an assortment of antiquated laws are being cleaned out of the books in Vorwhatever District, including one that if a man and a woman co-inhabit a domestic building for ten years, they are legally assumed to be married in the District - and thus, thanks to federalism, in every other District across three planets. Though the law is being removed and updated, the letter assures them, their marriage will remain binding and valid. If they wish to have it annulled for any reason, they may petition the office of the Count

after a non-zero amount of swearing, they decide to fly down to Vorwhatever District and petition him directly

Count Vorwhatever frowns, staring at the paper. “Wait, Vorkosigan - ah, you’re technically in the line of succession, aren’t you? For the District?”

Mark waves his hand. “After all of Miles’ children, thank god, which will probably be several dozen by the time he dies.”

The Count shakes his head and pushes the paper back across the table. “I cannot interfere with another count’s lineage. I’m afraid you’ll have to take it up with him.”

“Absolutely not,” Mark says promptly. “He’ll laugh himself stupid.”

Some arguing later, Kareen says thoughtfully, “Could we petition Count Vorkosigan’s liege lord instead?”

Gregor, when they sneak in time for an appointment, does not laugh himself stupid. Gregor, it turns out, knew all five years, because of ImpSec’s general alert for for the name “Vorkosigan” showing up in a legal context anywhere in the Empire and also on several other planets. He hadn’t mentioned it because he’d assumed Mark and Kareen knew, and that they hadn’t mentioned it to anything because it was either private or they just regarded it as a fairly irrelevant business thing.

okay, Gregor laughs at them a little bit. He does the Gregor thing where his eyes widen and he smiles just a little and if you know him, you know that he’s trying not to laugh openly.

He also reads over the paperwork they give him and then hands it back with an almost entirely deadpan expression and an apology that no, even as Emperor he cannot annul their marriage, due to not just restrictions on Imperial interference with a Count’s inheritance but the intersection of that and some other fairly esoteric laws - in force across all the Barrayaran Empire, actually, and put into effect during the Regency, that make Vor/prole non-Vor marriages particularly complex to dissolve.

“Trust me,” Gregor adds, “I studied these laws quite thoroughly, when I was anxious about proposing to Laisa.”

Kareen grimaces. “Miles is going to laugh himself stupid at us.”

Gregor is not foolish enough to disagree. “Not quite as hard as Ivan and Tej will,” he instead says helpfully.

Mark groans.

Smash cut to Mark and Kareen sitting in Miles’ study while Miles laughs so hard he nearly falls out of his chair.

also, I guess, he dissolves their marriage, if they want.

they probably don’t end up doing that.

they send a letter to select friends and family a week or so later informing them that they are, in fact, married now, do not want gifts or a party or anything but just FYI

502 notes View Post

horsecatfairybunny

9 months ago

Marian Ellis Rowan (1848-1922, Australian) ~ One hundred and fifty-eight medium- and small-sized moths, in seven columns. A wide range of families is represented, including the NOCTUIDAE, ARCTIIDAE, LASIOCAMPIDAE, LYMANTRIIDAE, GEOMETRIDAE, PYRALIDAE, SESIIDAE, etc.

Watercolour with bodycolour on green paper

[Source: Christie’s]

34K notes View Post

horsecatfairybunny

9 months ago

All spies need to feel they are loved. One of the most powerful forces in espionage and intelligence work (and one of its central myths) is the emotional bond between spy and spymaster, agent and handler. Spies want to feel wanted, part of a secret community, rewarded, trusted, and cherished...Exploiting and manipulating that hunger for affection and affirmation is one of the most important skills of an agent-runner. There has never been a successful spy who did not feel that the connection with his handler was something more profound than a marriage of convenience, politics, or profit: a true, enduring communion, amid the lies and deception. - The Spy and the Traitor by Ben Macintyre

1K notes View Post

horsecatfairybunny

3 months ago

Time Travel Fix-It-Fic idea where a Bad Ending happens, but then one of the characters is magically sent to the beginning of the story. it seems like they're the only one who's been sent back in time and they're like "Huh, is this my second chance? I have to try my best to fix everything! I have to do it on my own though, if I tell anyone else that I've lived a future with [Bad Ending], they would never believe me" so they try to push things toward a better outcome while staying secretive about the time travel thing. but it turns out that every character was sent back in time and everyone is trying on their own to fix the situation, but all of them think they're the only one who was sent back in time and that they have to hide it from the others, so they're all being secretive from each other and trying to act normal while fixing everything and they all have different ideas of what "fixing everything" even means and all of them are stupid and it just devolves into everything being worse

like this

14K notes View Post

horsecatfairybunny

2 months ago

You guys do know you're supposed to reblog things, right

177K notes View Post

horsecatfairybunny

5 months ago

what if your doppelgänger wasn’t evil it was just a person. what if your doppelgänger wasn’t trying to replace you it was just trying to learn to be a person and you were the best model it had. what if your doppelgänger looked at you with your eyes and said with your voice that it just wanted to be loved. what then.

76K notes View Post

horsecatfairybunny

3 months ago

Fuck this one hits home.

97K notes View Post

horsecatfairybunny

2 years ago

today my wisdom is: the ecological crisis of our planet is not a thing that will Suddenly destroy us sometime in the next century—it has taken decades of continuous work for our biosphere to be preserved thus far, and it will take decades more of continuous work to continue preserving it.

The apocalypse is not a single event hovering in the future bearing down on us while we sit helplessly. We are at least 150 years into an ongoing "apocalypse."

Things will continue to steadily get worse without steady action, but "augh! it's already too late to stop climate change and mass extinctions!" is specifically the worst response

60K notes View Post