Sign a contract before sex? Political correctness could destroy passion

RAEL’S COMMENT:
The return of puritanism under the disguise of protecting women. Another attempt to destroy freedom and especially sexual freedom.

 

In the West, at least, everyone has become massively aware of the extent of coercion and exploitation in sexual relations.

However, we should bear in mind also the (no less significant) fact that millions of people on a daily basis flirt and play the game of seduction, with the clear aim of finding a partner for making love. The result of the modern Western culture is that both sexes are expected to play an active role in this game.

When women dress provocatively to attract the male gaze or when they “objectify” themselves to seduce them, they don’t do it offering themselves as passive objects: instead they are the active agents of their own “objectification,” manipulating men, playing ambiguous games, including reserving the full right to step out of the game at any moment even if, to the male gaze, this appears in contradiction with previous “signals.”

This freedom women enjoy bothers all kinds of fundamentalists, from Muslims who recently prohibited women touching and playing with bananas and other fruit which resembles the penis to our own ordinary male chauvinist who explodes in violence against a woman who first “provokes” him and then rejects his advances.

Female sexual liberation is not just a puritan withdrawal from being “objectivized” (as a sexual object for men) but the right to actively play with self-objectivization, offering herself and withdrawing at will. But will it be still possible to proclaim these simple facts, or will the politically-correct pressure compel us to accompany all these games with some formal-legal proclamation (of consensuality, etc.)?

New thinking

A recent, politically-correct idea is the so-called “Consent Conscious Kit,” currently on sale in the US: a small bag with a condom, a pen, some breath mints, and a simple contract stating that both participants freely consent to a shared sexual act. The suggestion is that a couple ready to have sex either takes a photo holding in their hands the contract, or that they both date and sign it.

Yet, although the “Consent Conscious Kit” addresses a very real problem, it does it in a way which is not only silly but directly counter-productive – and why is that?
The underlying idea is how a sex act, if it to be cleansed of any suspicion of coercion, has to be declared, in advance, as a freely-made conscious decision of both participants – to put it in Lacanian terms, it has to be registered by the big Other, and inscribed into the symbolic order.

As such, the “Consent Conscious Kit” is just an extreme expression of an attitude that grows all around the US – for example, the state of California passed a law requiring all colleges that accept state funding to adopt policies requiring their students to obtain affirmative consent — which it defines as “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity” that is “ongoing” and not given when too drunk, before engaging in sexual activity, or else risk punishment for sexual assault.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/414219-sex-political-correctness-relations/

Sužinokite tiesą

Perskaitykite pranešimus perduotus mums mūsų kūrėjų per Raelį 1973 metais!

Kiti renginiai

Sekite mus

Raelio akademija

you might also like

‘Black Bitch’ pub to be renamed

RAEL’S COMMENT: When the politically correct distorts the real meaning of words.

La Scala responds to call to ‘cancel’ Russian composers

RAEL’S COMMENT: Culture should never be penalized because of politics.

France ends anti-jihadist Africa operation

RAEL’S COMMENT: There is no real end to colonialism as long as there is one French soldier in Africa.

The germ, the bacteria, the virus, are inside or outside ?

RAEL’S COMMENT: Béchamp was right Michel Barrett: I think viruses and such come from outside; but does not cause disease if the body is healthy? …