(Disclaimer: I am Denise’s partner, have discussed this with her before, and so it’s unsurprising if I naturally interpreted her comment differently.)
Enthusiasm =! consent. I’m not sure where enthusiasm made it into your charitable reading.
Denise’s comment was deliberately non-gendered, and we would both guess (though without data) that once you move to the fuzzy ‘insufficient evidence of consent’ section of the spectrum there will be lots of women doing this, possibly even accounting for the majority of such cases in some environments.
(Disclaimer: I am Denise’s partner, have discussed this with her before, and so it’s unsurprising if I naturally interpreted her comment differently.)
Enthusiasm =! consent. I’m not sure where enthusiasm made it into your charitable reading.
Denise’s comment was deliberately non-gendered, and we would both guess (though without data) that once you move to the fuzzy ‘insufficient evidence of consent’ section of the spectrum there will be lots of women doing this, possibly even accounting for the majority of such cases in some environments.
Agreed that Denise’s comment didn’t equate enthusiasm and consent, but in UK law at least:
> the legal test has long been whether it was reasonable for a defendant to think she consented at the time
So someone’s enthusiasm during sex can legitimately portray consent – insofar as it would make it reasonable to believe they were consenting.