Those who try to discredit rape victims who didn't give legal consent will oppose the idea of judging the validity of the rapist's proof of legal consent by whether this so-called consent was enthusiastic.
However, it isn't enough for some of those people to disagree. Some will view the idea of enthusiastic consent as a hate-based concept. Enthusiastic consent (alleged rape victim actually wanted sex and showed this undeniably) is described as subjective while consent (as defined by defense attorneys and anti-feminists) is described as objective.
So why is enthusiastic consent such a hateful concept?
The first thing enthusiastic consent does is eliminate the excuses of those who rape the unconscious or semi-conscious. "But she didn't say no so my client assumed she was passively consenting," is no longer a valid defense. Neither is, "She didn't say no firmly enough to communicate her lack of consent." And neither is, "She didn't fight hard enough or try to scratch his eyes out so he assumed she was consenting while playing hard to get."
The so-called objective definition of consent means that if a rapist says a variation of, "Consent or be raped," and the rape victim chooses the less violent option that no rape occurred. To view this rape victim's response as non-consent because the victim clearly didn't want to consent but felt she had no choice then that is viewed by the opponents of enthusiastic consent as an injustice.
This scenario is real and a case where it happened changed Maryland's definition of rape after an appeals court ruling was overturned by Maryland's top court so that it is rape in Maryland if someone continues after consent is withdrawn. In that case the rape victim had just been raped by the friend of the guy giving her 2 options.
But according to the opponents of enthusiastic consent, she did consent and it is wrong to view that consent subjectively. But in this context it isn't subjectivity which is being blocked but context. With this model of objective consent it can't matter if the rape victim consented at gunpoint.
Consent is consent and we can't muddy the waters by getting subjective.
For those who say consent is consent (willing or not) then by their so-called objective standards the revoking of consent must be just as objective and there can be no subjective factors which allow continued sexual contact after consent is revoked. Any delay in abiding by the revoking of consent makes the other person a rapist.
If you look at those who view enthusiastic consent as a hate-based concept, you will likely find subjective excuses for why the revoking of consent can be ignored without the person who does the ignoring becoming a rapist.
This demand for objectivity is selective. A defense attorney's attempt to bring up past consensual encounters between the alleged rape victim and the alleged rapist and the past sexual behavior of the alleged victim is an attempt to make the jury see the case subjectively so that past consent overrules current lack of consent.
Those who blast the so-call subjectivity in enthusiastic consent, demand subjectivity for judging the actions of someone who didn't have consent for a specific action at a specific time.
The reason those who label enthusiastic consent as a hate-based concept do so is that if juries look at the context of what the defense attorney calls consent, to see if there is evidence that the person who allegedly consented clearly and unequivocally wanted to have sex, then the number of rape convictions will rise dramatically.
And that's just wrong in their opinion.
A whole subsection of rapists who work to get a mockery of genuine consent, don't allow their victims a chance to say no, or who use past consent to justify ignoring lack of current consent would have to worry about doing prison time.
Requiring people to have sex only with those who clearly want to have sex with them at that moment becomes the ultimate injustice.
What's interesting about any prediction that a vast number of boys and men would go to prison under the model of enthusiastic consent is that it provides a backhanded acknowledgment of how pervasive this type of sexual violence really is.