i know the whole “sex is a magical no-rules zone where anything goes” concept is really trendy in the technoliberal robot-worshipper crowd, but on some level you must realize that it would be utterly disastrous if applied in real life, right?
of course! that’s why a woman’s sexual partners must be vetted and approved by her older male relatives and/or the government, and she should be violently punished for making her own choices.
surely you don’t seriously believe that “reactionary traditionalist patriarchy” and “total no-rules lawlessness” are the only two possible options here.
if a person willingly gives aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, people (quite reasonably) tend to interpret that as indicating some level of sympathy/allegiance with aforementioned enemy. this still applies when the aid and comfort happens in a bedroom.
Yes, there are often reprisals against people seen as collaborators in countries that have been occupied. Similar vigilante behaviour is used to discourage relationships from crossing lines of class, caste, religion, and race.
I wouldn’t hold this up as an exemplar of good human conduct, though.
If anyone feels like spelling out a precise schedule of exactly when during the 20th century a German person could shack up with a French or Russian person without it being problematic then be my guest. Maybe after that you can tackle some other more contemporary examples, I can’t wait.
[lesswronger voice]: “you know…. in many ways…. being opposed to nazi collaboration is exactly the same as being against interracial marriage…. if you vibrate into the meta-meta-meta-level……”
and since I’m talking about nazi soldiers, and not civilians, let me lay out a schedule of when it’s bad to willingly shack up with a nazi soldier:
Yes the women who were imprisoned or had their head shaved on suspicion of being collaborators all contributed mightily to the German war effort I am sure, and it wasn’t just a hysterical over-reaction to distract from the fact that the bulk of the French population had quietly buckled under and done their best to get by without making any meaningful opposition to the occupation. No doubt all of those women were fascist sympathisers and none of them were unpopular for other reasons.
A useful rule to know before you take the action. Not so good ex post facto. Kind of super hypocritical when “shack up” gets you punished, but “literally sold to them the food they needed to maintain their invasion” does not. Additionally: How is a starving girl who shacks up in return for rations supposed to know whether a soldier is an “always” or a “never” before the war is over and the victor is writing the history book? Are American soldiers in Iraq an Always or a Never? What about after the news of Guantanamo broke?