The Language of Consent (Or, Hey You Kids, Get Off My Lawn!) March 3, 2011

Posted by FCM in authors picks Tags: consent

this was inspired by undercover punk’s latest, detailing mens use of rape to oppress women, due to the specifically-female harms of rape. namely, pregnancy. specifically, pregnancy unwanted by the woman, and the fear of unwanted pregnancy, and the complications of unwanted pregnancy. complications which are identical, of course, to the complications of a wanted pregnancy, or even an ambivalent one. but i digress.

it is (as UP says) painfully obvious that this is the case. and that womens oppression by men is based in womens specific vulnerability to men, namely, our ability to become impregnated by them. otherwise the abuse and oppressive tactics wouldnt be sexual in nature. (DUH!) and that rape is a tool, and its used to deliberately cause a very specific harm, to impregnate and (thereby) terrorize, colonize, mutilate and annihilate women, as a sexual class. by men. as a sexual class. sex-ual. okay?

the thing is, that the specifically-female harms of rape are identical to the specifically-female harms of PIV, undertaken when the woman does not want to become pregnant. and even assuming that an individual man does not consciously wish to terrorize, colonize, mutilate and/or annihilate his partner by fucking her, he is, in fact, placing her in harms way. to incur the same female-specific harm as the female-specific harm that occurs, deliberately, with rape. unwanted pregnancy.

does intention matter? and are these men really as innocent as they, uh, feign? well, as mary daly observed with men who surgically mutilated women by lobotomizing them, once these men realized that the end-result of a surgical lobotomy was to make women “good housekeepers” and to destroy their creativity and personality, and they did it to even more women after that…its perfectly clear that at some point, that result was exactly what they wanted to achieve. they kept doing it, intentionally, in order to get the result they (obviously) wanted. which was to destroy women (and in the case of surgical lobotomies, to replace them with meat-bots. and are we to believe that these womens husbands stopped fucking them after their lobotomies were completed? sure mkay). clearly, if you continue to do something, once you know the result, the result *is* your intention. see? its intentional.

so…when the female-specific harms and cruel intentions behind PIV (all PIV, including rape) are so painfully obvious…what in the everloving fuck are the fun-fems going on about, when they continue happily framing the “sexual” issue as an issue of “consent,” enthusiastic or otherwise? seriously? what is this about?

heres a clue, of the google kind. turns out, consent, as a concept, is routinely used in another context which is actually incredibly revealing: its used in the context of property violations, and trespassing. come again? YES. a quick google search of the use of consent and property law reveals this, which is meant as a primer on trespassing law for media folk who wish to intrude on other peoples property to gather material to print, but dont want to get in trouble for trespassing:

Seeking Consent to Enter Property You should make sure that you get consent before entering someone else’s property. This consent must come from the individual, group of individuals, or business entity that is in possession of the property. In many cases this means that you need to get the owner’s consent. […] In some cases you’ll be able to get express consent (verbal or in writing) from the person in possession of the property. In other cases you may believe you have the person’s implied consent for your ability to enter her property. This type of situation occurs when: –the person is not present, but your prior contact with the person leads you to believe that you can enter her property without express permission; [!!!] –you don’t ask for permission, and the person keeps silent during your visit to her property. [!!!] If you rely on implied consent, you may find it difficult to defend yourself if you are charged with trespassing. You will need to show that a reasonable person in the same situation would have believed that there was implied consent based upon the conduct of the person in possession of the property and the overall circumstance.

oh dear! now, what does all this consent-business sound like, to you? indeed, it is eerily familiar. especially the part about implied consent. now i wonder why that would be? but wait, theres MOAR:

Scope of Consent If you have a right to be present on private or public property you will not be trespassing if your use of the property is consistent with your right to be there. Make sure you understand the scope of the permission you’ve been given and stay within its boundaries. Misrepresenting yourself in order to gain consent You may want to engage in investigative reporting tactics in order to inform the public about improper business practices or governmental wrongdoing, and thus may feel the need to misrepresent yourself in order to gain the necessary consent. If you do so, you may find yourself facing charges of trespass on the basis that your misrepresentation vitiated the consent given to you.

indeed! now, be that as it may, and it may indeed be sage advice for woodward and bernstein wannabes who want to infiltrate the local planned parenthood for some anti-abortion politicking. you know, or whatever. but what else does this consent-business sound like? this is a serious question.

YES! its the exact same bullshit the fun-fems (and everyone in fact) are going round and round about, on teh fun-fem (and mainstream) blogs, and in life, when it comes to the issue of rape. rape used to be a property-violation, but guess what? it still is. once men owned the property i mean they owned women, and now WE OWN IT! i mean, us. we own us. yes we do, shut up.

when they talk about consent, what they are really saying is that rape is no more problematic than someone walking across your yard, without permission. that its the same type of harm. they are saying that its a property-issue, when really its not a fucking property issue, at all. it has nothing to do with it. women know this. i know they do. and men know this too. this is clearly the case, when they themselves are routinely sticking their dicks into women, with the deliberate intention of causing female-specific harm.

so everyone knows whats going on, but they are all talking about it like its something its not. they are hiding the fucking ball, is what they are doing. i blame the men of course. the fun-fems are just their very enthusiastic cheering section.