It seems to me that the real problem are false assumptions. You seem to think that the “neutral” state with a woman is that she consented to everything unless she specifically say no in a way that the men can under no circumstances misunderstood or claim he misunderstood (lie). That is a convenient lie.
I’ll be blunt and give you graphic and disgusting examples about why this is a lie:
Trigger warning on many levels…
If you have a health problem and faint only to wake up to someone fucking your ass, it is rape. You haven’t specifically said you didn’t wanted to be fucked or explained you are not into that, but in our society, straight men have achieved that “default” is “men doesn’t want to be fucked by other men in the ass”. They don’t need to specify. It is assumed unless stated otherwise.
On the other hand, straight men have made that many rape myths like “drunk women are sluts” make people falsely assume that drunk women have consented to everything unless proven otherwise.
The fair thing to do is to assume that no consent exist unless proven otherwise. And if a man just assume that a woman consented to something without being sure, he is being selfish, not loving. He might convince himself that he was being “purely loving”, but he willingly took the risk to hurt someone he claims to love by not making sure and making assumptions. That is not “purely loving”, is selfish. And putting the responsibility of his actions on others? Not loving. Many times, those assumptions are based on what other men tell them, not on what the actual person they are having sex tell them. Also, not loving.
And let's be clear, normal people are more than able to identify when their sexual partners are having a good time and when they are not. When they are enjoying something and when they are not.
And no, women didn’t have the obligation to “try something” to see if they like it before refusing to do it.
Again, you don’t need to specifically said to your sexual partners that eating shit doesn’t turn you on (some people are sexualy aroused by coprophagy), it is assumed. And if your sexual partner happened to shit on you while tied, would you said that you were on the obligation to specifically tell her that you didn’t want that before she decided to do it? Or would we agree that she is on the wrong and therefore rape you?
Think, if someone shit on your mouth as a sexual act that you haven’t agreed with and didn’t like without asking, would you say that person is being loving? It is someone who didn’t care about how you feel while shitting on your mouth. No matter how arousing it is for that person, you didn’t agree to that. It might even change how you feel about that person overall. And yes, you might say that you didn’t like it once she starts, but by then you might have already tasted the shit. Would you saying “stop” magically erase the taste, the feeling? No. Even if she stops, you would have already experience a violation.
Point is, just assume that men have the same obligations than women. It is not on you to think of every possible sexual thing and tell her if you like it or not and what you can’t do or not. And it is not on her to do that.
It is on both of you to find out what works for both. You want to do something new? ask. And if the answer is no, do not pressure. And if you really, really want to do that thing? look for someone who like it. And if there is no one, bad luck. That is how it works for everyone else.
The “consent confusion” is, basically, a myth created to make some rapist feel that they are being loving and that they couldn’t possibly know that the women didn’t want that at the same time they apply pressure on her to get their way. But the fact that they write strategies to “overcome a girls resistance” show that men already have understood the “no”, they just refuse to accept that “no”.
