A sex contract? It destroys passion.

At least in the West, each has become massively aware of the level of obligation and exploitation in sex.

However, we should also consider the fact [no less significant] that millions on a daily basis flirt and play the game of seduction with a clear purpose of finding a partner to make love. The demand of modern Western culture is that both sexes should be active in this game.

When a woman is dressed provocatively to attract men's vision or when those of “define herself” in order to seduce herself, they do not do so by offering themselves as objects only Persian or passive: but they are active agents of their objectification, by manipulating men, by playing ambage games, including the opportunity to get out of the game when they want to, even if, for male vision, this seems to be inconsistent with previous revelations she had given.

This free woman is pleased to disturb all kinds of fundamentalists, of Muslims who have recently forbidden women to touch and play with bananas and other fruits that resemble the penis for our ordinary male chauvinism, which breaks out in violence against a woman who first approved them, who then refuses the flow of that adoption.

Female sexual liberation is not only a Puritan attraction from being “objectively targeted” [as sexual object for males] but also the right to play actively with self-environment, offering themselves and being attracted whenever they want. But will it still be possible to promote these simple facts, or will the pressure of political accuracy cause us to accompany all these games with some form-leg statement [of consensus, etc.]?

New Thinking

The new idea of political accuracy is the so-called “Consent Concious Kit,” [see photo below] recently on sale in the US: a small bag with a condom, a pen, mouth-smelling chewing gum and a simple contract stating that both participants are voluntarily doing the sexual act. What's required is that the couple willing to have sex or take a picture holding the contract, or they sign the contract when meeting.

However, although this “Consent Conscious Kitt,” addresses a real problem, it does it in a way that is not only stupid but also directly counter-productive. The question is why?

The fundamental idea to be understood in it is how a sexual act, in order to clear itself of any doubt of obligation, must be declared as a decision taken in full freedom by both partisans ʹ expressed in Lacanian terms, by the great other, and overwritten in a symbolic order.

As such, “Consent Conscious Kit” is just an extreme, extreme expression of a growing attitude throughout America, for example, the state of California has passed a law requiring all colleges to accept the adoption of policies that require their students to accept a positive attitude that is more widely defined as a voluntary, affirmative, and conscious agreement to become part of sexual activity<3>

Larger view

“Optimative, conscious and voluntary Agreement” But by whom? The first thing that needs to be done here is mobilized the Ego, Superego and ID triads [in a simplified version: my self-aware consciousness, the moral responsibility agency that changed the standards on me, and my deepest half-emored passions].

What if there's a conflict between these three? If, under the pressure of Superego, my ego says no, but Id resists and insists on denied will? Or [in a much more interesting case] is the opposite: I say yes to a sexual invitation, giving in to my Id passion, but in the midst of the performance of the sexual act, by making love, my Superego causes an unbearable feeling of guilt?

So, to bring things into absurdity, should the contract be signed by Ego, Superego or ID, so all three at once, so that the answer is valid only when the three say yes? Plus, what if the male partner also uses his contractual right to go back and reject the deal at any moment of sexual activity? Imagine if, after receiving the approval of the designated woman, when they find themselves naked in bed, one of the small body details [the unpleasant sound of a vulgar flock] breaks up the erotic charm and makes the male pull out? Is that not extreme humiliation for women?

The idealology that promotes sexual respect deserves more thorough consideration. The basic formula is: “Yes, dtth yes!” must be an explosive yes, and not just a lack of no. “

Mood Breaker

Here, however, the problem multiplies: What if a woman with passion wants one thing but is too shameful to openly declare or display her passion? What if, for both partners, forced or forced sex is part of the erotic game? And a yes to what, exactly, what kind of sexual activity is she declared to be? Should then the form of the contract be more detailed so that the principled adoption becomes more specific: a yes to the vagina but not to the anal sex, a yes to... [remarking of translators: the rest is very explicit and heavy]

Someone could just imagine a long bureaucratic negotiation, which could kill all the lust for sex, but also make it happen to negotiate itself as an act. These problems are not secondary at all, they challenge the core of the erotic cross-game from which you can withdraw to a neutral position and declare willingness [or, wages] to do it: any such act is part of the interface, even though it de-erotifies the situation or forms a certain erotic of it.

The sexual rule “but means yes” is a case of the narcissistic notion of subjectivity that is dominant these days. A subject has been tested as harmful, something to be protected from a complex set of rules, warned in advance of all possible interventions that could disturb it.

Remember that, after his publication, ET [Extra-Terrestial] was banned in Sweden, Norway and Denmark: because the unsympathic portrayal of adults was considered dangerous for the relationship between children and their parents. [One ingenious detail confirms this charge: In the first 10 minutes of the film, all adults are seen under their belts, like adults in animated movies threatening Tom and Jerry...]

From today's perspective, we can view this ban as an early sign of the monitoring of political accuracy with the protection of individuals from any possible experience that can hurt in any way. And the list could be endlessly expanded with even the proposal to remove tobacco digitally from Hollywood classics...

Yes, sex is driven by power games, violent obscates, etc., but the most difficult thing to admit is that power games are insecurably sex. Some more attentive observers have noted that the only form of sexual relations fully adjusted to the criterion of political accuracy would be just a contract between the Sandasohist partners.

Therefore, the establishment of the Political Correct and the establishment of violence are two sides of the same currency: as long as the basic premise of political accuracy is cutting sexuality in a common contractual approval. And French linguist Jean-Claude Milner was right when he observed how the inevitable sexual movements reached their peak in contracts that define extreme forms of sex, howeveramazohist [where man is treated as a dog, a slave, where there is torture, even murder with approval].

In such forms of consensual slavery, contract market freedom denies itself: and slave trade becomes the last requirement of freedom. It's like Jacques Lacan's motive “Kanti with Sade” [De Sad's brutal ideology as the truth of the rigorous Canaanite ethics] becomes reality in an unexpected way. But before denying this motive as just a provocative paradox, we need to reflect on how this paradox works in our social reality.

Subtitles by: