It's criticized that the author is trying to create a new language/jargon. I disagree, but in a sense the creation of super-hot consensual sexual experiences might take a bit of study and practice. How can you be sure the look in your partner's eye means "Yes, I really want you to go with that person and I'll go with this person" (or something more or less wild?) unless you've taken some time to go over this? In the beginning you might find yourself still referring to the 'grammar book' to clarify specific rules, but eventually it becomes second nature and the real poetry can begin.

If this really sounds as boring and legalistic as you act like it is, read sexy anarchist articles on consent and talk about it with your interested friends, bring up new ideas and try shit out.

Maybe I'm just a dorky legalistic loser who needed a dating guide book, but consent workshops have worked wonders for me. ;)

If I use a tried and true method to get you in the sack, that is, asking, complimenting, being kind, but I only wanted to fuck you, and nothing more (and this intention wasn't expressed in my flirtations), would you consider yourself consenting to the act? I don't think so. You consented to the implication, the flirtations, the desire, but you didn't consent to me using you as a fuck object.

Well, considering sexual consent is about the sex (and mid-coitus one is being quite literally used as a "fuck object")...

In the end I think it's making the situation more complicated than it need be. Coercion can only be fought with trust, and trust can only be obtained over time. But if the less honest people out there want to get someone in the sack, perhaps they could analyze these 'methods of communication' to manipulate their way into the sack.

I largely agree with what you're saying. Of course people can and will always be manipulated for sex -- even weird consensual processes and workshops cannot prevent that. And sex will always have complicated emotions, and even consensual acts will have negative or unforeseen consequences.

But I think Explicit Consent (ie: the legalistic/formal-ish consent processes) can kind of...secularize sexual relationships. When one consents to sex, one is not not making any representations about one's emotions, "the future," a relationship, etc, unless that is explicitly consented to the same way as sexual acts are. This is where the OP's consideration of the two-way street is interesting -- one person's feeling of being manipulated is not exclusive of the other feeling the same way.

I don't think Explicit Consent will make sex or relationships simple. But it can improve understanding and clear up miscommunication and hopefully prevent certain instances of sexual assault. And consent is hottt too: it can.... streamline awkward situations and maybe transform them into something positive and awesome for all parties involved. After all, consent isn't about making us guilty and self-conscious of every behavior but liberating desires in ways that are inclusive of all involved parties' desires.

Years of trust are built on solid methods of communicating desires and developing that understanding. Sometimes one can't wait years to figure out another's boundaries, and explicit consent is a fantastic cheat sheet.