i was honestly just thinking abuot this expansikon of consent beyond like the direct-in-person experience into the public or metaphysical realm and then i saw this
which is actually just one example of a sor tof logical progression from these public-square definitikons of consent. like, someone i knew once held a belief like this premised on the extrapolation from a Jessica Valenti-based consent politics - basically, it was rape to masturbate to the thoughts of someone becauss they didn’t consent to you thinking about them . this was also their anti-p*rn politics as well as their idea that masturbation was a form of infidelity (luckily, this was a passing political moment for them).
but this is what i mean when i’m talkinga bout the ways in which like consent frameworks can be expanded far beyond their actual ethical utility - approaching somethning like a real “didnt nyou forget to ask someone?” conservative image sort of idea around a repressive view of sexuality.
Frankly, asking someone this is a colossal boundary violation, the sort of thing that acts to pressure the listener to engage in a sex conversation with you. The fact it “feels more consensual” is only true if you see consent as this abstract, legalistic, set of rules to follow - rather than a nuanced set of guidelines centered around how the other person feels.
Your imagination harms no one, impacts no one, but as soon as you’re having the conversation with someone they are Very Involved.
Imagine someone you mentally code as creepy, whatever that looks/feels like to you, coming up to you and saying “By the way, I want to jerk off to you”; & consider that, that may well be how the object of your private carnality is going to receive your confession. Rather than it feeling like, a radical & empowering boundary negotiation.
