Is "her pleasure" a better standard than "her consent"?

Elizabeth's picture

 LouFCD tweeted about this blog post which pointed to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The article provocatively asks us to consider whether "consent" is too low a bar to set for deciding whether sex that happens is okay. Adele Horin, author of the article, suggests that a better standard for deciding whether sex should happen or not is whether the "he" in the situation (she is presuming hetero encounters) is committed to "her" pleasure. If he approaches the sex with her pleasure in mind then consent is going to have to be part of the picture, but he will go beyond consent to make sure she is enjoying the sex she consented to. Horin asks:

What would happen if the burden of proof in a rape trial were turned on its head.

Instead of a woman having to prove she did not consent to sex, a man had to convince the court he went into a sexual encounter with the aim of both parties having a satisfying sexual experience.

Take a look at the article. There are some problematic assumptions but the underlying idea is an interesting one. What do you think? Are we setting the bar too low by focusing so heavily on consent? (And what do you think about the assumptions?)