I Don't, Do You?

I've wanted to write this for a long time but I've just had things to do and it's quite important to me so I wanted time to get it right. Well, now I've got that time, let's see if I can manage it.

Firstly, let me just explain that I'm against marriage. Mostly because of arbitrary reasons, either because I feel that it's pointless (1 in 3 marriages end in divorce, it's no longer a serious commitment) and secondly, because I don't feel I need someone to officiate over my relationship (whether it's the Church or the State I don't really feel I require their validation to enjoy my life).

However, this post is my more concrete thoughts on marriage, what it is, where it's come from, and hopefully, why you shouldn't be enamoured with it either.

Firstly, I'm going to explain how it is the least feminist institution going, derived entirely of patriarchal oppression and male dominance, and I'm going to do it without even mentioning that marriage was originally a ceremony to signal the transfer of a woman's ownership from father to husband (oops).

No, I'm going to steer clear of the marriage particulars, and instead look at how marriage came to be in the first place. I mean, I assume that at one stage we were just savages, not far derived from apes in terms of sociability and cultural customs. Therefore, let's turn to biology for a few answers.

Primate reproduction 101
If there's one thing that endless hours of David Attenborough and Steve Irwin (not so much) teach you, it's that only the best get laid. It's practically the founding block of evolution. It's also a biological fact that, due to a primate's lengthy gestation period and relatively instantaneous refraction time, one male could impregnate all females in a given society at any one time.

So, if the females are so choosy, and the men are so promiscuous, what do the non-elite males do? Let's say, for argument's sake, that there is a population of 100 males and 100 females (I could draw a diagram, depends on how bored I get later).

Those 100 females each choose one of the top 5 most gorgeous, handsome, strong, reproductively attractive males to have relations with. And the males, being males, don't say no. Therefore, 100% of the females get some action, while only 5% of the males get busy too.

This leaves 95% of the males with nothing to do but hit the gym, get disgruntled, and play football (that's what sexual frustration does to a man). Eventually, tired of this arrangement where they don't get any, and sick of watching the exhausted elites strut about with their smugly satisfied faces, this 95% decide enough's enough. They decide that the arduous task of impregnating the females should be split equally and, being the larger part of the stronger sex, they get their way.

Yes, it's unnatural, yes, it's 'might is right', yes, it's inherently male oppression, but hey, that's monogamy. And to ensure the continuation of this system, they introduced the institution of marriage, binding one woman to one man for their natural life.

"But!", I hear you cry, "this is surely a fairer system, I can't see how you can claim it's disadvantaging anyone."

Well, no, culturally and socially it's impeccable. It is now so much an ingrained aspect of our society that the idea of polygamy is abhorrent.

But biologically, it is the product of male force (that disgruntled 95%) removing the ability of women to choose their favourite male to mate with, ie. the epitome of male-female oppression.

And that is why feminism and marriage cannot be reconciled.

The Age of Consent (For Meg)

By consent, here I mean the consenting of individuals to live in a society. Namely their consenting to offer up some of their liberties and power to a centralised government in return for a perceived increase in security and order.

However, my point is also linked to the 'age of consent' in the more ubiquitous sense; as that age at which one is legally allowed to engage in sexual activity.

But first let's make a distinction between two theories of how a people give consent to their rulers... the distinction between explicit and tacit consent.

Explicit consent is the everyday conceptualisation of consent, when someone has a clear choice and chooses to allow a particular course of action. For example, I explicitly consented to allow someone to go ahead of me in the supermarket queue this morning.

Tacit consent is in actuality the more pervasive form of consent, and refers to when someone upholds a norm or convention merely by failing to oppose it. For example I tacitly consent to being governed by Her Majesty because I haven't (yet) taken up arms against her/ left the country.

And this is where the recent case of Megan Stammers comes in...

One of the key arguments made by Locke is that the legitimacy of a Government rests upon the people giving their consent to be ruled. He postulates that this can come in the form of tacit consent, but only if there is the feasible potential ability of any individual to withdraw their consent... Without such a measure then the government becomes a totalitarian dictatorship as there is no alternative offered...

He argues that the two methods of withdrawing one's tacit consent are to a) express explicit discontent by overthrowing the government, whether by ballot or bullet, or b) leaving the jurisdiction of said government...

This is exactly what Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest did. They were born into the subjection of a government over which they had no part in creating or shaping and they therefore chose to withdraw their consent due to their inability to live under the laws created by that government. Explicitly they took issue with the law defining the 'age of consent' and therefore emigrated to France where they expected to live under a law more preferable to themselves.

Now this is exactly how Locke says tacit consent should work. If one doesn't like a law they should work to repeal it, or leave its jurisdiction. They ought not be held accountable under that law if they do not recognise its authority and are actively seeking to leave the society that it governs. Any attempt by the British government to prosecute either of them under the law they reject is simply demonstrating that the theory of 'tacit consent' is a lie, and proving that this government is unlimited, unaccountable and illegitimate... a terrifying prospect...