Most of the article, I can understand and get behind.
But the middle part (about sex) just completely loses me.
Here he’s saying that sex was never non-antagonistic, right? What does this mean?
That it was always antagonistic.
I’m just confused by this. What does he mean by “women know/don’t know what they want”? Is this related to consent, in that, women don’t know if they want to consent? They don’t know if they want sexual interaction?
He means that women don’t just look at a random guy and think oh, I want him because of this and this and this and by extension I will reliably want any man in any circumstance who is like this and this and this. When they want it, it’s highly circumstantial and hard to translate into epistemic language.
Is he saying that women don’t know if they want to consent or not but after having sex they like it and thus consent retroactively?
He’s saying that the ambiguity is a big part of the mystique of sex particularly for women. He thinks that women having to state that they explicitly want X Y and Z kills it for them.
Umm, so…sometimes women play hard to get and men should force themselves on them?
He’s saying that just because someone “officially” wants something doesn’t mean they really want it. I.e. women who “want” to get raped don’t really want to get raped, they just want to fantasize about getting raped.
The only form of sex that fully fits the politically correct criteria is a sado-masochist contract. How???
Because it’s the only way you can fulfill the idea of epistemic consent while at the same time having an element of thrill and unpredictability. Basically, you’re epistemically consenting to have things done to you that you don’t have to epistemically consent to.
Because it’s the only way you can fulfill the idea of epistemic consent while at the same time having an element of thrill and unpredictability. Basically, you’re epistemically consenting to have things done to you that you don’t have to epistemically consent to.
I haven’t thought about this sort of thing at all, philosophy is usually pretty confusing to me, but this is an interesting line of thought. Idk what to do with it but it’s interesting.
