The good news: I am fairly certain that this [is] possible
Namely, that the centrality of consent is partly a cause, and not just a consequence, of the presumption of romance-as-negotiation.
This part didn’t fit.
Synthesis would have been better than the critique. This would have been easy—acknowledge ‘this advice applies to this part of this kind of relationship, though I would emphasize (building a relationship isn’t just about you, etc., and it moves more towards this other approach as....)’, instead of arguing this is wrong, then later trying to recognize when they’re right later on. Just unify up front instead of contradicting an entirely valid point, and highlight the context. Then move on.
To accommodate the myriad complexities of sexual misery the consent framework has to keep accumulating epicycles like “original consent”, “enthusiastic consent”, and “grooming”. Since consent lends itself to judgment by outside moral authorities, these authoritiespromote it to the exclusion of discussion of the squishy and nebulous sides of sexuality.
This is a bad explanation—other explanations that account for the same phenomena...also suit ‘judgment by outside moral authorities’. Perhaps even better than it does.
This part didn’t fit.
Synthesis would have been better than the critique. This would have been easy—acknowledge ‘this advice applies to this part of this kind of relationship, though I would emphasize (building a relationship isn’t just about you, etc., and it moves more towards this other approach as....)’, instead of arguing this is wrong, then later trying to recognize when they’re right later on. Just unify up front instead of contradicting an entirely valid point, and highlight the context. Then move on.
The source, Yeerk:
This did not look like a good source.
This is a bad explanation—other explanations that account for the same phenomena...also suit ‘judgment by outside moral authorities’. Perhaps even better than it does.