I spotted the following sentence in a post by an obviously very angry radical feminist -- I don't link to hate sites: "Rape is the absence of enthusiastic consent. That seems pretty fucking simple to me."
First, an observation. I can usually predict based solely on the writing style whether the writer is a young, extreme feminist by the inappropriate, angry use of the "f" word. They do it to show how "tough" and how "angry" they are. The cookie-cutter overuse of that word, and the chronic white-hot anger exhibited by these persons, who are often barely more than girls and have not learned to think much less write, often renders their prose hopelessly ineffective.
Second, aside from her screeching, grating prose, she is, of course, wrong. There is no requirement of "enthusiasm" under any legal definition of consent. There is either consent or there isn't.
Persons in a committed relationship do things for each other with regularity out of love and often without enthusiasm. When women want to become pregnant, men often have sex out of obligation even when it's not especially convenient and quite often when they are not "enthusiastic." The writer is probably too young to know that.
And women sometimes fake "enthusiasm" and sometimes they fake orgasms, often because a couple's sex drives are not in sync. This, of course, is verboten among young angry feminists who know very little of the real world. As they will learn when they grow up, sometimes in long-term relationships women's sex drives diminish to the point that it becomes a problem for the relationship. Men's sex drives are typically greater (due that horrible thing called testosterone that we're not supposed to talk about because we're not supposed to acknowledge that men and women really are different). Women are sometimes more interested in preserving the relationship than in being sexually fulfilled so they "fake" it. And you know what? The guy might not want to have sex if he knew the truth -- so legally, has the guy been raped?
Sex is sometimes a complicated thing for a couple in a relationship. But luckily consent isn't. The test for consent is whether a reasonable person would understand that the other party has manifested willingness to have sex, by their words or conduct, based on the totality of the circumstances, without threat of physical force. When a couple willingly has sex, it is not rape. If a guy forces the woman to have sex, or has sex when she's too drunk to consent, that's rape.
To graft the artificial and decidedly subjective requirement of "enthusiasm" onto the definition of consent is unworkable and would only serve to jack up rape convictions -- imprisoning men and boys even when the woman has consented to have sex.
But let's be honest, jacking up rape convictions really is their goal, isn't it?