I agree enthusiastic particpation is a better way of looking at it but their deginition seems slightly to confuse to consent and to submit. Lots of words have two definitions e.g. terrific. So that alone is not enough.
Plus consent to be governed is not as simple as the gvnmt are the bosses, being in gvmnt is also seem as serving.
There is some mileage in saying that you cannot say the divifing line between sex and rape is vobent this implies that rape is also sex and therefore not violence. But perhaps while they are looking at the dual meanings of words they might want to consider the nature of the term violence.
They also seem very scathing about the idea that women enjoy sex...you might think you do but really you don't ...patronising much?
And labelling the theories about sexual dysphoria as pseudo science with their pseudo logic is very poor. Given that orgasms release endorphibs and any activity that releases endirphins can cause a rebound depression, why should sex which is after all.a physical activity be anny different?
And the feelings of dirtyness is in part a social construct not aided by women telling other women that what they are doing is wrong. But I can also have feelings of revulsion if I choose to eat until I am sick but I am not being abused by the cake. I might feel unhappy if I lie on my couch and do nothing but I am not being oppressed by my couch. What I am saying is that those feelings of revulsion are personal and internal and do not relate to another party hence why the reporting women often have these feelings unrelated to their feelings for their partner.
As for social constructs of sexuality I would say that the sicial concept of male sexuality is just as if not more constrictive than that pushed on women (i am not talking about the media objectifucation of women i am talking about the attitudes around what it means to be a 'real man')