Potemkin wrote:I disagree. The article argues, in fact, that we must go beyond the legalistic definition of 'consent'.
I agree that
we must go beyond legal definitions in our relationships; but that is stating the bleeding obvious. Well, I thought it was, but you seem to think it's a leading-edge bit of thought. The author says "We are too scared, and ashamed, to face just how many women have ‘consensual’ sex but don’t like it, and just how many men are okay with this." If sex is consensual (no need for scare quotes), then a woman can decide to not have it with a partner who doesn't give her pleasure. It's not up to the law, or society in general, to ensure happiness for an individual, whether in eating, or sex, or relationships. If you think a restaurant serves bland food, then you go elsewhere. The same for a partner. To claim "the legal system is part of rape culture" because it doesn't address the pleasure a woman gets is supremely idiotic.
The law, by its nature, cannot apply to anything other than a transactional arrangement.
Obviously, it can. The law about assault is not about a transaction; similarly, the law about sexual assault is not about a transaction. Only parts of law are about transactions.
There's no law you can pass which can force people to love and respect each other. Yet that is what is needed - mutual love and respect. This is what she refers to as "wanting the sky".
Yes, mutual love and respect is needed, but that's not even what she wrote about. She writes about enjoyment of sex, enthusiasm, and sexual pleasure and appetites. That's the "sky" she says she wants. She is moaning that women don't get enough sexual satisfaction, and that makes the law part of rape culture. Which is why it's stupid, and reads like a parody.