At Drudge, there was a link to this piece on how political correctness is killing passion:
A recent, politically-correct idea is the so-called “Consent Conscious Kit,” currently on sale in the US: a small bag with a condom, a pen, some breath mints, and a simple contract stating that both participants freely consent to a shared sexual act. The suggestion is that a couple ready to have sex either takes a photo holding in their hands the contract, or that they both date and sign it.
Yet, although the “Consent Conscious Kit” addresses a very real problem, it does it in a way which is not only silly but directly counter-productive – and why is that?
The underlying idea is how a sex act, if it to be cleansed of any suspicion of coercion, has to be declared, in advance, as a freely-made conscious decision of both participants – to put it in Lacanian terms, it has to be registered by the big Other, and inscribed into the symbolic order.
As such, the “Consent Conscious Kit” is just an extreme expression of an attitude that grows all around the US – for example, the state of California passed a law requiring all colleges that accept state funding to adopt policies requiring their students to obtain affirmative consent — which it defines as “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity” that is “ongoing” and not given when too drunk, before engaging in sexual activity, or else risk punishment for sexual assault.
More importantly than whether a sex contract kills passion is whether it kills freedom — and that would be a resounding “yes.” Who would uphold such a stupid contract? If the contract only protects women, why? This is just a way to control the sex lives of men. It is dangerous, crazy and indicative of a misandrist culture desiring to hold certain men accountable for consensual acts while giving women the power to harm any man she so desires. Sex contracts do not belong in a civil, just society but today we have neither. It’s no wonder so many men avoid women all together, but even that is not always protection.