Yes, ialdabaoth has clarified what ialdabaoth means, that doesn’t necessitate that it’s the same thing the words are intended to mean when communicated by the majority of people using them, nor does it necessitate that it’s the same thing that is understood by the majority of people hearing it.
I believe that ialdabaoth has misunderstood the concept in its intended meaning by the people who invented the concept, and I believe ialdabaoth is wrong about what the word “enthusiastic” communicates to pretty much everyone.
FWIW, prior to reading this thread my understanding of what advocates of “enthusiastic consent” are talking about was much closer to ialdabaoth’s meaning than to yours.
To be more specific, I have always understood it as attempting to contrast with grudging consent, and as having nothing at all to do with exuberance or excitement.
That being said, I agree that understanding how an audience will interpret my phrasing is critically important if I want to communicate to that audience. If you understand “enthusiastic consent” to mean that excitement and exuberance must be expressed, then it’s a really bad phrase to use when trying to communicate with you and those like you.
And if you’re correct that pretty much everyone shares your linguistic intuitions here (and ialdabaoth and I are aberrant outliers), then it’s a bad phrase to use when trying to communicate with pretty much everyone.
To be more specific, I have always understood it as attempting to contrast with grudging consent, and as having nothing at all to do with exuberance or excitement.
Ok. The thing is that grudging consent is still consent. If you grudgingly buy something you can’t sue to get your money back.
I agree that grudging consent is still consent. My understanding of what advocates of “enthusiastic consent” are talking about includes the idea that mere consent is insufficient for sex… e.g that sex is held to a different standard than marketplace purchases. (Lemon laws similarly establish an alternate threshold for car purchases.)
My understanding of what advocates of “enthusiastic consent” are talking about includes the idea that mere consent is insufficient for sex… e.g that sex is held to a different standard than marketplace purchases.
I don’t think most feminists would say that explicitly, because that immediately raises the question of why should the standards be different and why that particular standard. Incidentally, I’ve been involved in at least one argument with a feminist where “my side’s” goal was for or less to get him to admit that the above was a consequence of his position.
(Lemon laws similarly establish an alternate threshold for car purchases.)
Lemon laws are different, they’re about the buyer being misinformed.
I expect that most of the feminists I know would agree with my statement.
In general, my country’s laws don’t treat sex as equivalent to marketplace purchases, so the question of why the standard should be different for the two doesn’t seem terribly important to avoid… we run into analogous questions all the time without fleeing from them.
The question of why that particular standard might be worth avoiding; I’m unsure.
Yes, but I still think it’s a bad thing when people are talked into begrudgingly buy stuff they don’t actually want, and I would be in favour of changing social norms so that that happens less often… if only I had any idea how to do that without also disapproving of bargaining.
ArisKatsaris is not arguing that ialdabaoth is wrong, based on the definition of a word. He’s arguing that evangelizing people using a particular word is going to have a different effect than the evangelist has predicted; which seems completely reasonable. Whatever ialdabaoth means by “enthusiastic,” if he’s telling other people to look for enthusiasm, those other people are going to use their own definition.
Please don’t dispute definitions. Your interlocutor has clarified what they meant by the term.
Yes, ialdabaoth has clarified what ialdabaoth means, that doesn’t necessitate that it’s the same thing the words are intended to mean when communicated by the majority of people using them, nor does it necessitate that it’s the same thing that is understood by the majority of people hearing it.
I believe that ialdabaoth has misunderstood the concept in its intended meaning by the people who invented the concept, and I believe ialdabaoth is wrong about what the word “enthusiastic” communicates to pretty much everyone.
FWIW, prior to reading this thread my understanding of what advocates of “enthusiastic consent” are talking about was much closer to ialdabaoth’s meaning than to yours.
To be more specific, I have always understood it as attempting to contrast with grudging consent, and as having nothing at all to do with exuberance or excitement.
That being said, I agree that understanding how an audience will interpret my phrasing is critically important if I want to communicate to that audience. If you understand “enthusiastic consent” to mean that excitement and exuberance must be expressed, then it’s a really bad phrase to use when trying to communicate with you and those like you.
And if you’re correct that pretty much everyone shares your linguistic intuitions here (and ialdabaoth and I are aberrant outliers), then it’s a bad phrase to use when trying to communicate with pretty much everyone.
FWIW, I also interpreted it as you and ialdabaoth.
Ok. The thing is that grudging consent is still consent. If you grudgingly buy something you can’t sue to get your money back.
I agree that grudging consent is still consent. My understanding of what advocates of “enthusiastic consent” are talking about includes the idea that mere consent is insufficient for sex… e.g that sex is held to a different standard than marketplace purchases. (Lemon laws similarly establish an alternate threshold for car purchases.)
I don’t think most feminists would say that explicitly, because that immediately raises the question of why should the standards be different and why that particular standard. Incidentally, I’ve been involved in at least one argument with a feminist where “my side’s” goal was for or less to get him to admit that the above was a consequence of his position.
Lemon laws are different, they’re about the buyer being misinformed.
I expect that most of the feminists I know would agree with my statement.
In general, my country’s laws don’t treat sex as equivalent to marketplace purchases, so the question of why the standard should be different for the two doesn’t seem terribly important to avoid… we run into analogous questions all the time without fleeing from them.
The question of why that particular standard might be worth avoiding; I’m unsure.
Come to think of it, the feminist in question was on the extreme sex-positive end.
Yes, but I still think it’s a bad thing when people are talked into begrudgingly buy stuff they don’t actually want, and I would be in favour of changing social norms so that that happens less often… if only I had any idea how to do that without also disapproving of bargaining.
This was going to be my reply to you comment. Basically, this is why people doing things “begrudgingly” is not necessarily a bad thing.
ArisKatsaris is not arguing that ialdabaoth is wrong, based on the definition of a word. He’s arguing that evangelizing people using a particular word is going to have a different effect than the evangelist has predicted; which seems completely reasonable. Whatever ialdabaoth means by “enthusiastic,” if he’s telling other people to look for enthusiasm, those other people are going to use their own definition.