Heinlein was surprisingly racist for someone who opposed racism and surprisingly creepy for someone who respected women’s agency and believed strongly in consent. Medlesohn wants to do the “product of his time” thing but I think it’s more useful to look at him as a prototypical facts-and-logic bro, shaped by his time studying engineering at a naval academy. He works on rules and fucks up because he’s not capable of understanding others’ subjectivity.
@ghost_bird I'm trying to remember, but cannot think of a single case from Heinlein's books (at least ones I have read) where a woman would *not* consent.
Which makes one doubt what did Heinlein believe in, actual consent, or some perfunctory concept?
@IngaLovinde Mendlesohn’s argument is (roughly) that his idea of sexual integrity involves absence of jealousy and an instance on consent, but that he’s more interested in giving examples than showing the bad alternatives. And his women are very often the ones who do the choosing and make decisions in general... but I think the inability to think beyond his own experience means it all ends up as male fantasy anyway.
@IngaLovinde (I’m not interested in reading the big recent-ish biography, but I gather at least his first marriage was a reasonably equal open relationship.)
A fire is burning in Bird Spirit Land.