Also, on a slight tangent, Emily Nagoski has an interesting article on "fuck yes" consent up today.
I entirely agree that it should not be this way, but Moz is not saying it should be either, he's merely admitting that the position exists. The difference between what is legally true and what people expect to be true is often a hideous chasm.
Thank you. I was beginning to wonder whether what I'd posted was so hideously miswritten that it was gibberish.
I was actually one step nicer than even your expectations, to be honest, and thinking about people who expect that at some stage during their marriage they might have sex with their spouse. Many people, possibly even most, wouldn't feel it necessary to discuss that explicitly before the wedding. And might therefore bring it up some time after the wedding when it turns out that that unspoken assumption was apparently wrong. Not in the "you must sex me now" sense, but in the "oh my love, I begin to think I was wrong to expect sex after marriage. Was I, in fact, mistaken?" sort of way. This being a "moving beyond no" sort of discussion.
In the context of a "yes means yes" article it's interesting that no-one else is ready to even concede that that might be a possible way to approach consent.
(and Lilith, yes, Adrienne Rich)
we're talking about consenting to sex rather than breaking some random contract. It doesn't matter what reason someone has for not consenting. "I don't want to" is sufficient.
I was specifically talking about peoples reason for consenting, and how those can be judged invalid by others. At the extreme is the Mary Daly "no woman can consent to sex with a man" or the Dworkin/Mckinnon "cold light of day with lawyers" version. And at the other I suppose is the "I got drunk so I could throw myself at this guy I liked, but he said no so I screwed some random dude who happened to be nearby".
I find it somewhat tiresome that we're apparently already retracing past threads here. But, what the heck: marriage is regarded by many people as involving sex, and therefore consenting to marriage is a statement that you do intend to have sex at some point. It's not consent to a specific act at a specific time and place, but many people would consider ongoing refusal to be a betrayal unless discussed before marriage. The law, of course, does not even require spouses to reside in the same country, let alone communicate with each other or share anything.
Euan, marriage definitely does not imply consent, though it used to - rape is rape, also within marriage. This has been the case legally for some years.
I suspect his point was that the law and people's expectations often differ. We see this all the time in a whole range of legal areas, and much of legal practice consists exactly of getting a judge to decide what's reasonable given inconsistent expectations of two parties bound by simple written agreement. When it's two parties operating without a written a greement in a situation of deliberate ambiguity the complexity rises significantly.
There's also a huge gulf between "not a huge fan but I'll do it for reasons" and "fuck no!", and everyone I've met has "reasons" that are acceptable and ones that are not. So adding a third party doesn't necessarily simplify the situation, especially if that third party is explicitly there to judge the reasons...
The thing about the good2go app is that it seems to negate the concept that consent can be withdrawn at any time
Yeah, the missing feature is the ability for either partner to log in and remove their consent. Sure, the app can then say "gave consent at XXpm, retroactively removed it at YYam", but I suspect that's not quite what the designers have in mind. That's even without the lovely dichotomy of sex/not-sex that the app constructs. We've had the tortuous legal arguments about what constitutes sex, thank you very much.
Although, an app that plays 20 questions with the sort of sex you have in mind could be kind of fun. I'm sure there's a TV game show in there somewhere, maybe as the next stage in The Bachelor? "he thought they were going to ..." and "she thought..."
Moz: "Can I start by saying..." No.
Nice context removal, Chris. Way to completely change the argument I was making. I'm impressed at your bad faith and dishonesty.
That's not the case with a person who has a job for the UN. They have leave and options to return home that soldiers might not have.
OK, we're not going to agree on this. Soldiers "might not have" options, but UN workers can always... ignore the quarantine in Nigeria and whip back to NZ for a quick visit so they maintain their ability to vote. Any safety or cost issues are irrelevant next to the need to make sure only the right people get to vote.
Universal suffrage. That's what I want.
The soldier is clearly a special case, and the fact we have an exemption for them isn't an argument for another sort of person.
I don't see why soldiers should be a special case. Why is killing in the name of so much better than making peace in the name of that the killers get to vote but the peacemakers don't?
If the "right" to vote has to be justified, can I start by saying that those who voted for someone later convicted of a criminal offence should never be allowed to vote again. Obviously their judgement is poor and their vote compromises our democracy.
Maybe that means the UN worker should be able to vote, but until that time, the military exemption makes sense.
I was arguing that the soldier exemption was a reason for allowing the UN worker to vote, yes. The original context was my running through the list of disenfranchised people and pointing out irregularities like that. They exist, as far as I can tell, for every disenfranchised group except "legal residents or entitled to legally reside in NZ". I would be interested to see an exception to that, but AFAIK there isn't one. Except maybe The Queen of New Zealand, who isn't a citizen but is entitled to reside here. But she can't vote, so that's not really an exception in the right direction.
No, you didn't. You said you wanted some kind of rationale
And the very next sentence was
Moz said: Saying "it's easier to measure" or "the media will accept it" or, worse, "the existing voters will accept it" doesn't seem a very sensible stance to me
But then you say
The only valid reason to cancel a citizen's right to vote should be death.
So once they have the vote it doesn't matter what they do or what condition they're in. It's just that they don't get the vote until they reach a suitable age. Which is currently 18 in NZ, 21 in some other countries and there's no reason it shouldn't be the age when almost everyone has reached mental maturity. If you have to pick a number why not pick one that has a bit of reasoning behind it rather than just "it's a convenient number".
I'm actually torn by that one, since the evidence we have is that mental maturity arrives between 25 and 30 for most people. But it's backed by increasing evidence (not just age of criminal action), so it'd be justifiable that way. I would prefer "can read and reason" rather than "acts responsibly", but either beats "it seemed like a good idea 150 years ago".