Enthusiastic Consent is Not Sexy, but Something Radically Different is.
I may not be a woman, but I have forwarded your article to a number of my female friends, and they have confirmed my suspicions. Not only are your arguments against the six most common justifications taking for granted that you are correct (regardless of how correct you are, it is never good to make this assumption,) but your approach of “enthusiastic consent” is not sexy. It may well be a good way to ensure you’re not sexually assaulting anyone, but it is not sexy.
What you propose is still, though less transparently, treating the woman as if she is an object to be won.
Let’s imagine your approach from the woman’s point of view: a charming, attractive young man comes up to you and makes you laugh, not just once but a few times. After spending some more time together, and still finding him enjoyable and attractive, you end the night in bed together.
Now imagine the next day the man confesses his “technique” to you. He says, “look, I wanted to make sure you gave your enthusiastic consent before we went to bed together, and so when I went up to you and introduced myself, I made sure to make you laugh, because I know that that’s practically an aphrodisiac. For me, foreplay began way before we took our clothes off. I was ‘foreplaying’ with you from the moment we met.”
Now aside from the fact that the thought of a man imagining his whole encounter with a woman was foreplay, which is overly sexual and non-consensual (how are you to know that the woman wants to be engaged in any form of foreplay?), you only approach this woman with the objective of sexual gratification.
Now, you justify this claim by stating that your end objective of this “game” is the sexual gratification of the woman, however you state that:
since I was a man, and thus far easier to arouse, I figured I’d be sexually gratified somehow in the process of getting her all the way off. And this approach worked very well. All it required was a small shift in perspective.
In this, you’re simply masking the fact your real end goal of self-gratification with the woman’s sexual gratification. I wonder, would you still have this approach if it offered you no sexual gratification but still offered it to the woman?
My proposition rests on fundamentally different principles. Instead of approaching the woman with the objective of getting into bed with her, instead of sexual gratification being reason for you approaching women, what about investing in the other person’s humanity? Not as a sexual object, nor as acting as one for her pleasure, but as two humans interacting, getting to know each other. Imagine, instead of approaching the woman in order to have sex, approaching to get to know her, to invest in her as a human and simply invest in her life and emotional needs.
Now, some might be concerned of the “friend zone,” but if this is a concern you raise, then you reveal that your ultimate objective is still indeed to have sex with her.
Now while this might not guarantee you sex at the end of the night, surely it at least lifts the woman to the same level as you and you can both be satisfied in that someone else is treating you authentically and with respect for your humanity, and does this not satisfy on a much deeper level than a brief, fleeting moment of sexual gratification (whose urges are sure to return the next day anyway?)