An Enthusiastic Standard

A reflection on "Toward a Perfomance Model of Sex" by Thomas Macaulay Miller

(page 37) "Rape apologists argue that once consent is given it cannot be withdrawn; that acquiescence under the influence is consent; that women who do not clearly say no assume the risk."

This attitude assumes that once sex enters the picture, men become little more than drooling idiots unable to control their little heads, and can't tell when their partners aren't enjoying themselves (or that men shouldn't have to care whether their partners are enjoying themselves). While some douchebags simply really don't care about their partners' pleasure, most people want to be thought of as good lovers, which means they care that their partners ENJOY what's going on. If someone is too self-centered to pull his/her head out of his/her ass long enough to realize that his/her partner is, at best, tolerating what he/she is doing, then he/she is no where near a semi-adequate lover, let alone a good one.

Consent can be withdrawn at any time. "Ow" means "Stop!" unless pain was negotiated and consented to prior to starting. When enthusiasm stops, pleasure stops, and so should the activity. Why is this a foreign concept? Sex is supposed to be enjoyable.

Good sex takes two enthusiastic participants, and while enthusiasm may not necessarily equal pleasure, without it, one partner is masturbating while using someone else's body. That's not the kind of sex I want, for me or for anyone.

(page 39) "Under a performance model, ... sexual interaction should be creative, positive, and respectful even in the most casual of circumstances, and without regard to what each partner seeks from it."

Sex takes (at least) two partners who tune into what each other wants. A healthy and enthusiastic sexual relationship leads to exploring new things, communication, and pleasure. It may not start out with instant fireworks, but mutual fireworks tends to be the goal. It gets better with time.

Without respect and communication, it gets worse over time, not better. If sex with you means that we do what you want even though I hate it, how long do you truly expect me to continue sleeping with you? If sex with you means we both have fun and occasionally you ask me to do something that I don't really care for, but do anyway because you like it so much and I enjoy pleasing you, then I'll continue to want to sleep with you. Collaborative sex is fun.

And guys, if you want to hook up from time to time with various people, but only take what you want without caring if you give pleasure in return, I hope that you understand that you're earning your reputation for being a douchebag.

(page 40) "If our boys learn from their preadolescence that sex is a performance where enthusiastic participation is normal and pressure is aberrant, then the idea that consent is affirmative, rather than the absence of objection, will be ingrained."

The reason so many women have experiences like mine with JRS is because of a cultural attitude where sex is all about "getting some" and "scoring." When all you want to do is "score," then you don't really care if the sex is good or pay attention to the the signals that your touch isn't welcome. You are settling for terrible sex, and may even be raping someone. Is that what you truly want?

I have wonderful, mind-blowing, forget-my-name sex with my husband and lover(s), but even quickies are satisfying because we care about each others' needs. We listen. We watch. We give mutual pleasure, which in turn increases our own pleasure. Sex should be fun, not endured, each and every time, otherwise what's the point in having it?