Bull. Ensuring consent is on both partners. Both partners have to keep clued into whether their partner is willing and enthusiastic. Imagining that only men have to do this is just wrong and part of the entire phallocentric enterprise here. You want to require women to act in a certain way even in situations where rationally they shouldn't, all just so that you have to do less work to check in on your partner's well-being. Furthermore, it's a pretty big slap in the face to insist that women who are pressured, sexually assaulted, or raped just should have said no louder or more times. This line of thinking thus falls into victim blaming.so many verbal demands are being put on the male counterpart as far as consent.
So yes, both men and women need to respect consent. Yes, ideal practice is that everyone is open about what they want and don't want. Yes, both women and men can do enthusiastic consent better. Here's the bull: when someone messes up, you put the blame on women who should be "up front for once?" Come on Skeezy. You're better than that. Don't give rapists, sexual assaulters, and coercers cover by saying a woman wasn't "up front."
Who? When? What did they say? Someone may have said that women (and other people) would be in a situation where they would not want to say no, or that saying no might have repercussions, and that communication might be nonverbal and verbal. Do you see the difference between that and saying anyone is incapable of saying no? (In the last thread, only SimpleMan used "incapable," and in a line of thinking that misconstrued what came before.)Along with more than one person actually saying women may be incapable of saying no.
It's a strawman that started SimpleMan's slippery slope.