If anyone would like to point out where this comparison/example fails, let me know.
I will use cis terms just for brevity's sake, but many inclusive scenarios are just as accurate.
A woman invites a man on a date. She invites him back to her place.
1/
She initiates sex. She absolutely wants to have sex. The man wants it, too. He accepts and consents back. This is consensual sex.
There is no aggression. There are no unwanted actions. It is an intimate, caring situation. She is enjoying it.
And then change her mind.
2/
Consensual sex requires the active consent of both parties. Thus, the withdraw of consent by ONE makes it nonconsensual. There is no longer two-way consent. It is instantly nonconsensual sex. It is instantly, technically, rape now.
3/
Importantly, "why" she changed her mind is irrelevant.
IRRELEVANT.
No one, not even the man involved, gets to request an explanation, gets to complain "but I wasn't...," or "but I don't understand."
This is how CONSENT works.
4/
The giver of the consent is in control. The man does not have to "consent" back that the sex is over. He cannot claim he "didn't receive her withdraw of consent."
The woman's withdraw of consent - which is, at heart, simply a state of mind, is ALL that matters.
5/
Also note, in this scenario, we don't discuss whether the man "chose" to violate her. It is irrelevant. The man could have zero ill intent. Like I said, he could have done zero "wrong," by any external measure.
CONSENT gives the woman complete control to decide it's over.
6/
In addition, the end result MUST be that the unwanted action regarding her body stop. If she says, "stop touching me," he must stop. If she says, "get your penis out of me," it must come out. Our current system of ethics does NOT have a place where that is questioned.
7/
This is how BODILY AUTONOMY works in tandem with consent. Let me repeat:
All she has to do is change her mind, and communicate what bodily violation she has withdrawn consent for, and our ethics dictate THAT IT ENDS.
8/
The "how" it comes to an end has possibilities. The "what" must come to an end DOES NOT. The violation of her body must end.
As a practical matter, because that man is an actual autonomous, sentient person, he can be communicated with.
9/
She can say "stop," and that should work. It may not.
Maybe they speak different languages.
She can push him away, and that should work. It may not.
Maybe he thinks it's playful "hard to get."
She can yell and scream, and that should work. It may not.
10/
He may somehow misconstrue it as pleasure.
She can then hit, injure, punch, scratch, and that should work. It may not.
What would NOT do here, in our CURRENT system of ethics and laws, is to say, "well, his health is more important, you can't hurt him to get him off you."
11/
Our current system of ethics and laws prioritizes that woman's bodily autonomy, and her authority to have consent over it, above that man's right to not be injured...and yes, even over his right to life.
She can ethically, legally KILL HIM if that's what it takes.
12/
Every single part of this can be directly analogous to pregnancy.
A woman can participate in consensual sex. She can even avoid birth control and hope to get pregnant. She can get pregnant and initially be happy.
And then change her mind.
13/
The ZEF inside her doesn't have to consent back. It doesn't matter if it "chose" to be there.
If she says, "I don't want to be pregnant," the violation must end.
That's how consent and bodily autonomy works.
14/
Because that ZEF is NOT an autonomous, sentient human being, there is no option to ask it, communicate with it, or anything.
Because that ZEF is inextricably intertwined with her internal organs, there is no option to coax it out gently.
There is one option: abortion
15/
Just like with the original analogy, that doesn't change the fact that the violation MUST END. And just like with the original analogy, we do not prioritize someone else's (alleged) "right to life" over her rights to her body. We don't say, "well, you can only end it if..."
16/
Anti-abortion is wholly INCONSISTENT with our currently practiced system of ethics and laws when it comes to consent and bodily autonomy.
Abortion is healthcare.
Abortion is a person's right.
#prochoice, with NO exceptions, is the only consistent position.
/end
please unroll @threadreaderapp
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.