Big Sibling Is Watching You...Screw: Will Australia Require Explicit Verbal Consent For Sex?
This is insane.
Remember when the left wanted the government out of your bedroom? Because those days are long past. The general thrust (as it were) of contemporary progressivism is toward greater social and political interference in private affairs--minimization of individual freedom and autonomy, and micromanagement by the doctrines and apparatchiks of the left... Ahem... Though one might be able to say all that a bit more dispassionately.
The only thing standing between the left and the implementation of this sort of sexual totalitarianism is means. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd do it. They already did it in American public universities. I.e.: the one place they had the power to do so.
And don't give me any of that well-wouldn't-there-be-certain-advantages nonsense. Nothing could be more irrelevant. This is a matter of freedom and privacy. You probably have a pretty good idea where you can stick your good consequences, such as they are. One of my general, animating ideas is: you can be a liberal without being a moron about it. Case in point: you can be against rape without being a totalitarian psycho about it.
(Of course what's up here is the application of academic/activist feminist ideas to the world of actual humans. And that never ends well...)
One of the most angrifying lines/lies of this whole train wreck at American universities was the surreally cynical slogan "consent is sexy." That should have caused riots in the streets, in my opinion--and on account of the dishonesty alone. But the real problem? Don't presume to tell me what's sexy m*ther f*ckers. Jesus what grotesquerie. Who is less qualified to make such judgments than a PC feminist bureaucrat? Maybe Jerry Fallwell? Maybe not... And don't pretend to be giving how-to advice on good sex when what you're doing is making laws that infringe on sexual freedom. Hey, why not Totalitarianism is sexy? Or The denial of due process is sexy? In fact: just STFU about the whole thing. And, to repurpose an old slogan: keep your laws off my body. And everybody else's, while you're at it.
I can't believe this Australian thing will become a real thing. If it were to, it would seem to entail that even people married for fifty years would be under a legal obligation to give explicit verbal consent every time they had sex. (Even people who can't speak?) And both would be in violation of the law if they didn't do it--even if the other did not file a complaint, consented in fact but not in word, and in no way considered it rape. So if, say, the government were to wiretap your house and discover that you didn't comply with this diktat...well, what's a fairly standard penalty for rape?
If anybody's still sitting on the sidelines whining about how none of this is a big deal, and Trump is worse and blah blah blah...well, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you're not, maybe it'll help if you reflect on the fact that these people are just getting warmed up.
Remember when the left wanted the government out of your bedroom? Because those days are long past. The general thrust (as it were) of contemporary progressivism is toward greater social and political interference in private affairs--minimization of individual freedom and autonomy, and micromanagement by the doctrines and apparatchiks of the left... Ahem... Though one might be able to say all that a bit more dispassionately.
The only thing standing between the left and the implementation of this sort of sexual totalitarianism is means. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd do it. They already did it in American public universities. I.e.: the one place they had the power to do so.
And don't give me any of that well-wouldn't-there-be-certain-advantages nonsense. Nothing could be more irrelevant. This is a matter of freedom and privacy. You probably have a pretty good idea where you can stick your good consequences, such as they are. One of my general, animating ideas is: you can be a liberal without being a moron about it. Case in point: you can be against rape without being a totalitarian psycho about it.
(Of course what's up here is the application of academic/activist feminist ideas to the world of actual humans. And that never ends well...)
One of the most angrifying lines/lies of this whole train wreck at American universities was the surreally cynical slogan "consent is sexy." That should have caused riots in the streets, in my opinion--and on account of the dishonesty alone. But the real problem? Don't presume to tell me what's sexy m*ther f*ckers. Jesus what grotesquerie. Who is less qualified to make such judgments than a PC feminist bureaucrat? Maybe Jerry Fallwell? Maybe not... And don't pretend to be giving how-to advice on good sex when what you're doing is making laws that infringe on sexual freedom. Hey, why not Totalitarianism is sexy? Or The denial of due process is sexy? In fact: just STFU about the whole thing. And, to repurpose an old slogan: keep your laws off my body. And everybody else's, while you're at it.
I can't believe this Australian thing will become a real thing. If it were to, it would seem to entail that even people married for fifty years would be under a legal obligation to give explicit verbal consent every time they had sex. (Even people who can't speak?) And both would be in violation of the law if they didn't do it--even if the other did not file a complaint, consented in fact but not in word, and in no way considered it rape. So if, say, the government were to wiretap your house and discover that you didn't comply with this diktat...well, what's a fairly standard penalty for rape?
If anybody's still sitting on the sidelines whining about how none of this is a big deal, and Trump is worse and blah blah blah...well, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you're not, maybe it'll help if you reflect on the fact that these people are just getting warmed up.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:49 AM
6 Comments:
This insane reliance on legalistic formulas will make the problem of date, marital, and acquaintance rape worse, not better. No one, absorbing the sense of the letter of such a law, is really going to start getting explicit, verbal consent to every sex act, regardless of the length and nature of the relationship. But everyone who has absorbed the sense of the letter will get used to casually lying about who said what and when in the bedroom. This is especially true on campuses, where the kids are being asked increasingly as informants against their friends. After all, where what the law is asking is unreasonable, it it reasonable to break it, and it is reasonable to resist further by lying to cover the break.
But breaking the law all the time - and even obeying it while rolling your eyes - breeds cynicism. Cynicism is not easy to keep confined. If seems fair to lie that you got the consent formula during a mutually satisfying encounter, it'll seem fair is more ambiguous circumstances. Even the basic, willful rapist has a formula to hand: "Yes-she-said-fuck-me-right-now-and-said-yes-I-will-do-so." Does that sound like bullshit? Sure it does, but it does when the rest of us say it too.
Winston, do you have specific suggestions about what those of us who should "feel ashamed" should do?
Anon 2,
I don't think I understand the question.
Is there some reference to feeling shame in the article? I can't access it anymore, as it turns out, and I don't remember that bit.
I personally don't see that shame's involved in any way. My objection is that it's totalitarian psychopathy to presume to interfere in sex in this way. It's also prudish. The extremist left has always had this weird prudish streak. Now it's a weird mix of grotesque licentiousness (even my my rather denigrated standards) and prudery. How you work yourself into that freakin' combination is beyond me...
You wrote "If anybody's still sitting on the sidelines whining about how none of this is a big deal, and Trump is worse and blah blah blah...well, you should be ashamed of yourself."
My question about what we should do is sincere. Should we contribute to legal funds to challenge "totalitarian psychopathy" in court? Is there current legislation we should support or oppose? Should we lobby our state legislators to hold hearings and grill university presidents and administrators on their policies? What concrete action do you recommend?
Anon,
I responded, but something weird happened with my response. So here it is again:
I don't know.
I just speak up about the stuff--a lot. IMO one of the biggest problems we face is that the sane, centrist left *cannot* bring itself to criticize the crazy left. This leaves only the right to do so...and the centrist left also cannot bring itself to agree with the right. Sometimes, IMO, people *just have to hear someone speak the truth.* All they have to do is hear it said! It's like a switch flips and the lights go on. This happens to me a lot. I think: Jesus I knew that! To misquote James: sparks fly from hearing such things, and they light up our sleeping magazines of reason.
So: I don't know.
But on thing is: don't be cowed by the fact that speaking out against PC will get you vilified by the PCs.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home