Sex agreement

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-do-we-understand-sexual-pleasure-in-this-age-of-consent
Do we live in the age of sexual consent? At least, feminists and other representatives of that movement think so. Is sexual consent a new form of moral behavior? Maybe. Isn’t it reactionary? It seems so. Isn’t it funny to create a strong dichotomy where there is none by definition? How we should interpret such statements as “Law, and society, should endorse only genuinely desired sex”? What’s “desired sex”? What are its limits? And many other questions that we can ask ourselves while reading the linked article.

Skeptical Modernism

You know, there are problems with Post-Modernism: different opinions have the same weight; no grand narratives; science is not objective; no objective reality etc. To some extent I may agree almost with all those premises. For example, I’m questioning so called expert knowledge, and in some fields, especially, in arts, this knowledge is based entirely upon subjective feelings. I’m also questioning grand narratives e.g. that society somewhat progresses. Here I adhere to the (maybe) reductionist argument: no progress until we escape the burden of our biology including the brain itself. So the question is could we potentially combine rationality with post-modernism? Some people argue that it’s possible. That we can combine it in Skeptical Modernism where there are such premises as (I quote here):

    Seemingly objective facts are often actually subjective (the date when Rome fell depends on how you define “falling” and perhaps the date we use is affected by incentives)

    Objective criteria of what counts as what are generally dependent on subjective opinions about what should count as important

    The answers to popular debates are often less interesting than the question ‘why are we having these debates at all?’

    Science is not quite as objective as it appears, as while there are certain standards or rules as to how various pieces of conflicting evidence should be compared, there isn’t a comprehensive, universally agreed upon standard for this

    Our culture raises us from birth to think a certain way and it is impossible for us to completely escape this influence
    Most people have a tendency to generalise their beliefs of how society should work to other societies with a very limited understanding of the cultural context. Even people who are well educated generally don’t have the same experience that people in that culture have.
    The language that we have access to makes some ideas easier or harder for us form and communicate
    That moral intuitions differ widely between societies so we should strongly question whether our moral beliefs are well justified
    Society seems to have been progressing over the last few hundred years, but not in all ways and this progress is far from guaranteed

    Democracy is generally good, but it requires a specific type of cultural context to work

I don’t know to what extent it would be useful to develop this idea further though. But it adds something to think about at least.