If a man walks up to a woman and places his hands on her body without her permission – her consent – it is considered at least an affront. If he continues, after she has made it very clear his advances are not welcome, it is considered – rightly and in law – sexual assault and that man is subject to arrest and criminal prosecution.
Consent is also demanded – in law – when it comes to most contracts. You cannot legally be bound by a contract you never signed, nor by one which you were forced to sign – because duress obviates consent.
But the government tells us we must “consent” – or else. Also that our “consent” is implied – whenever it suits the government.
In our cars, for instance.
The doctrine has it that because we asked to be allowed to drive on the government’s roads (“public” isn’t an accurate term; ownership is a function of control. The government controls the roads and therefore owns them) we have given our “consent” to all sorts of things – including being forced to prove ourselves innocent of crimes there’s no reason to suspect us of having committed.
And also to give armed government workers lots of opportunity to find one we may have – including things which aren’t even crimes, such as not wearing a seatbelt – but which entail punishment (and profit).
Of course, we didn’t actually consent to any of this.
All we wanted was to drive. That is to say, to travel – a thing which used to be a recognized right but which has become a conditional privilege.
If we refuse to consent, force will be applied to us as punishment for not consenting.
How is this not exactly the same thing – in principle – as punishing a woman for refusing to let a man feel her up?
Damned if you do – and damned if you don’t.
