I don’t think “enthusiastic consent” should be treated as the only valid form of consent, or that it should be treated as mandatory for sex to be ethically justified.
I’m sex-repulsed. And I rarely get enthusiastic about anything - that’s just my personality. Does this mean I can’t consent to sex? Hell no. I am perfectly capable of saying “yes,” just as I can say “no.” And my “yes” is not less valid just because it doesn’t fit with how allosexual people think I ought to feel during sex. My agency is not diminished just because my natural preferences skew a certain way.
I get that “enthusiastic consent” is supposed to clarify that situations where someone consents reluctantly aren’t really okay. I agree with that. But it also suggests that the only ethical form of sex is that which is highly desired and enjoyable to all people involved, and that’s something I don’t agree with. Because not all people find sex intrinsically desirable. And we should not need to value sex the same way other people value sex, in order for our sexual choices to be considered legitimate.
I’m not really interested in theories of consent that try to “protect” me by denying me the right to consent at all.
Instead of saying how people should feel, I think we should focus on consent as being informed, free from external pressures for or against it, and done when a person is in a state of mind to consent (i.e. no drugging people to take advantage of them; this also rules out children, who can’t consent). And when it comes to “reluctant consent,” I’d rather see more focus on emotional manipulation, and other kinds of behaviors that are used to coerce people into sex, and why these things are wrong - rather than saying the consent ought to be a certain way in order to be valid.