# I’ve met EL before

**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-ve-met-el-before/79797
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [March 16, 2024, 5:25pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-ve-met-el-before/79797 "2024-03-16T17:25:37Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/user_avatar/www.ilovephilosophy.com/ichthus77/32/446_2.png) [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2024, 12:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-ve-met-el-before/79797/6 "2024-03-17T12:17:21Z")

</div>

Marriage is like privacy — requires mutual consent recognition, so it doesn’t violate consent. It excludes all non-consenters (which they are happy about), but also excludes consenters who don’t recognize that two consent-structures are having a very private conversation—such consenters are actually consent-violators. So it’s a good exclusion. It only includes consenters, and only consenters who are not consent violators. If a marriage is not doing that, Anarchism B has crept in: [Recognition vs. Violation: The Two Anarchisms](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-two-anarchisms/79798)

A consent violator has no right to be included. They can get over it.

A “no marriage” world (the way you’re talking about things) means EVERYONE is treated as a consent violator, when they did nothing wrong, and (at least some of them) just want to recognize consent in a very private conversation. Need to know. Ya know?

What’s your password?

---

_[View the full topic](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/i-ve-met-el-before/79797)._