Funny how I've never had anyone tell me that doorbells have ruined inviting friends over.Clever, but I'm not convinced it works. Doorbells are for strangers, aren't they?--or for friends who are being at least a bit formal. Is that a good model for lovers, or should we assume that communication in that context is a lot more tacit?
I expect friends to drop by unannounced sometimes. They know they can count on me to speak up if there's some reason they can't come in. Don't we expect a lover to make a few presumptions, too, as long as he keeps his eyes and ears open for our response, which won't always be signed, sealed, and notarized? There are always people who can't take a hint, and you gradually ease them out of your life, without making a federal case out of it.
If they have their way, everything is a federal case. That right there is the problem...
ReplyDeleteAs long as people keep trying to outsource common sense to the federal government, they're going to have issues.
ReplyDeleteControl over who we let close to us is non-delegateable except for morons like Gwyneth Paltrow who want to give someone else all the power they need to do .... ummm... whatever.
It's funny how this gets streamlined to "friends," too. It's true: I expect my friends to knock. My wife, on the other hand, has her own key. You know?
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the California law, the doorbell analogy would be more like:
ReplyDeleteRing the doorbell to get the owner to open the door.
Ring the doorbell again to be allowed to step over the threshold.
Ring the doorbell again to be allowed to enter the living room.
Ring the doorbell again to be allowed to sit on the couch.
Ring the doorbell again to be allowed to start a conversation.
Etc.
It assumes the home owner isn't capable of saying:
I'm not opening the door.
You can't come in.
Stay out of the living room.
Don't sit on the couch.
Shut up.
Etc.
It especially assumes the owner isn't capable of saying, "I don't want you here. Get out and get out now."
(If I were better at writing humor, I'd love to script a casual sexual encounter under the new law. Or perhaps Freshman Orientation where every student gets a breathalyzer, a video camera, a stack of consent forms, and a box of pens.)
I have an idea. Let's regularize consent into some sort of ceremony. The two consenting adults show up in a government (or theocratically approved substitute) building, confirm on approved paperwork that they are in fact adults, healthy, able to understand the agreement they are entering into, unencumbered by other contracts or undisclosed committments, and entering into the new encounter willingly. A judge (or theocratic officer of similar standing, for those so inclined) would witness the exchange of consents, prompting the nervous participants as needed. More paperwork is signed, in front of more witnesses if desired. Then the happy couplers can go off somewhere private and couple their parts all legal and uninhibitedly.
ReplyDeleteWe could give the ceremony and the ceremonial consenting processes special names. Any suggestions?
J Melcher, a very clever comment. May I share it with friends via email?
ReplyDeleteGreat minds think alike, they say. Texan99 said roughly the same thing in this post from 30 SEP (note her 11:00 comment toward the top of the thread).
ReplyDeleteHeather MacDonald says we should all embrace this idea because it sets sexual liberalism back 50 years at the hands of the liberals. The result may be, she adds, "a sharp decrease in casual, drunken sex. There is no downside to this development."
The MacDonald piece is really good, Grim. The part that struck me was:
ReplyDeleteThe default setting for premarital sex was “no,” at least for females. Girls could opt out of that default—and many did. But placing the default at “no” meant that a female didn’t have to justify her decision not to have sex with particular reasons each time a male importuned her; individual sexual restraint was backed up by collective values.
This is something I've tried to express and haven't been able to very well. I am old enough to have been in the tail end of the "default to 'no'" period and while it was already largely ignored, it still meant that there was no expectation on the part of college men or college women that women should (not "would") say "yes". It provided some protection for young women who didn't want to but were susceptible to social pressures.
I'm an old man as of last night (the birthday party was tremendous, the hangover substantial). I admire a young woman who is willing to say "Yes," especially to a young man like a certain one of my good friends who has a disability. Her willingness to say "Yes" and affirm it in public means a lot to him, and therefore a lot to me. Just to have a woman who cares enough about him to affirm her love in public has made him so happy that I cannot but bless it.
ReplyDeleteIn the old days they would have married first (or almost first). Perhaps that way is better. But I think you're right: it's best that she should be expected to say "No." Part of the honor that has brought them joy lies in the fact that we know she might have said no: indeed, from the expectation that most would.
Happy Birthday, Grim. Sounds like a great party.
ReplyDeleteI suppose if one can assume that the answer is likely to be "Yes" that answer means less than it does when the answer is likely to be "No". I'm happy your friend and his sweetheart have found such great joy.