Scene 1: El Monroe — Rethinking Rhythm through Political Theology and Biopower

  Location: Her apartment, te evening.

  Desk cluttered with printed excerpts: Michel Foucault, Carl Schmitt, Judith Butler, Fatima Jawad.

  El (writing in her notebook, murmuring aloud):

  “Political theology... the idea that sovereignty is not just enforced by ws—but sacralized through form.

  6C doesn’t hide this. It decres its divine genealogy.

  The state is not secur—it’s rhythmical.

  That’s what liberalism can’t answer. Liberal theory evacuated ritual.

  And biopower—Foucault's term. The regution of life, bodies, reproduction.

  6C uses biopower btantly—with gender indexing, custody tracking, rhythm calendars.

  But here’s the twist: it’s not surveilnce for control—it’s pcement for permanence.

  My chapter can’t just critique that.

  I have to show that liberal w dissolves intimacy into abstraction.

  6C... forces it into legibility.”

  She underlines the words:

  “Liberal tolerance is not governance.

  6C’s rhythm is w.”

  Scene 2: Jillian Kim — Reframing the Femme Cuse as Post-Familial Infrastructure

  Location: UC Davis Library basement, urban policy research alcove.

  On screen: side-by-side breakdown of municipal zoning codes and the 6C Wife Femme Cuse.

  Jillian (typing rapidly, softly):

  “Suárez said treat it like hardware. Not ideology.

  That changes everything.

  Okay. In software terms, 6C’s Femme Cuse is like a civic API.

  It governs who can access shared property.

  Who rotates into caregiving.

  How emotional bor becomes legally logged.

  Western cities?

  They optimized for mobility, liquidity, individual tenancy.

  But post-familial poputions need the opposite: structure, rotational care, predictable dependency.

  6C built a feminized architecture where the nuclear family colpsed.

  Now… what’s the cost?”

  She flips to another tab. It’s a Twitter thread from a queer schor critiquing 6C as “theocratic choreography.”

  Jillian whispers:

  “Moral crity has a cost.

  6C doesn’t negotiate pluralism.

  It doesn’t allow contradiction—

  but it builds what contradiction failed to house.”

  She highlights her chapter subtitle draft:

  “When Ambiguity Breaks, Rhythm Remains: The Femme Cuse as Post-Secur Infrastructure”

  Closing Image:

  El lights a candle. Not spiritual—just for focus.

  Jillian scrolls through urban eviction data, then switches back to her draft.

  And across two spaces—

  Two women trained in secur critique

  Now chart the blueprints of a theocracy

  Because it built what theory only described.

  The rhythm has entered their work.

  Now, it begins to enter their nguage.

  ***

  Reading the Whole Drift

  Location: UC Davis Graduate Research Center – Quiet Reading Alcove

  Time: Saturday night, 10:40 p.m.

  Characters: El Monroe (26), Jillian Kim (27)

  The light above their table hums. Two ptops glow. Coffee cools beside annotated printouts. The night outside is silent—inside, only the occasional tap of keys and the murmured flipping of digital pages.

  They’ve just finished reading the entire FEMME Blog—from the first halting meditations on “shared rhythm” and “gendered bor custody” to the test entries on 6C legal design, erotic pcement, and domestic sovereignty.

  It wasn’t what they expected.

  El Monroe (scrolling back to the earliest entries):

  “They didn’t build an argument.

  They built a trail of emotional w fragments.”

  She points to a passage from Entry 2:

  “We didn’t choose wives. The rhythm pced them.”

  Then compares it to Entry 9:

  “Consent has a calendar. We just didn’t know we were obeying it.”

  El (thinking aloud):

  “They’re coding intimacy through repetition and liturgy.

  The logic isn’t missing—it’s emergent.

  It’s just not linear.”

  Jillian Kim (looking over a diagram she started):

  “They weren’t writing w.

  But they were acting as if w was already being lived.

  It’s governance by metaphor—but the metaphors are stabilizing.

  They act like precedents.”

  She points to a line from Entry 6:

  “Trust is not a feeling—it’s a rotation.”

  Jillian:

  “That’s not poetry. That’s civic pcement phrased erotically.

  They just haven’t extracted it yet.”

  They Pause. Then Speak Freely.

  El:

  “Every entry names a failure of liberal feminism to register care, rotation, and emotional bor.

  And every entry answers with some unrefined structure—anchored not in consent theory, but in rhythm.”

  Jillian (quietly):

  “It’s messy. But it’s functional.

  These women are documenting the pre-w of a post-familial civilization.

  They’re not writing theory. They’re living unratified statutes.”

  El's Notes (in her notebook):

  Blog ≠ Essay → Blog = Testimony-as-Architecture

  “Rhythm” = Early syntax of w without state

  Liberal feminism is critique. This is unacknowledged constitutionality

  Political theology without orthodoxy

  Biopower made intimate—not resisted, ritualized

  Jillian's Notes (on tablet):

  Urban chaos → Repced by erotic governance

  “Co-wives” = not romance, but rotational stabilizers

  Anchor = tether to legal recognition, not patriarch

  FEMME = proto-infrastructure in poetic code

  What zoning w failed to do, ritualized domestic trust began to do

  They Look Up From Their Screens

  Jillian:

  “We can’t critique this like policy.

  We have to treat it like drift becoming doctrine.”

  El:

  “And we don’t analyze it like theory.

  We arrange it.

  We transte what they’re writing into legal shape.”

  Closing Image:

  Two graduate schors, surrounded by fragmented blog entries, unofficial doctrines, ritualized testimonies, and unstructured w. Neither of them found a conclusion.

  But both now know:

  The blog is not confusion.

  It’s early governance—waiting for form.

  And if the FEMME writers lived the rhythm…

  El and Jillian will be the ones who diagram it.

  ....

  Location 1: Office of Dr. Harold Menkin

  Advisor to El Monroe | Professor of Continental Political Theory

  Time: Monday, 9:15 a.m.

  Setting: Floor-to-ceiling books. Notes from El’s st chapter meeting still pinned to a corkboard. A new quote on the whiteboard reads: “Legality is frozen mythology.”

  El stands before him, holding printed selections from the FEMME Blog—highlighted, annotated, diagrammed.

  El:

  “They’re not writing w.

  They’re performing it.

  The FEMME Blog is less argument, more… codified domesticity in pre-legistive rhythm.

  I think we’ve been asking the wrong question.

  Not ‘Is 6C ethical?’

  But ‘How did these women build ritual w while avoiding state recognition?’”

  Dr. Menkin (reading a highlighted section aloud):

  “We did not choose rhythm. It chose us when we shared space.”

  He looks up. Sighs—not dismissively, but as if bracing for weight.

  Dr. Menkin:

  “This isn’t a legal citation, El.

  It’s theological governance.

  And yet… it’s doing what liberalism refuses: making the private legible.”

  He leans forward.

  “Fine. Add it to the chapter.

  But treat this blog as oral jurisprudence.

  Don’t elevate the poetry—transte the patterns.

  And never forget:

  Law doesn’t begin in court. It begins where people survive each other.”

  Location 2: Office of Dr. Dana Suárez

  Advisor to Jillian Kim | Professor of Urban Feminist Policy

  Time: Monday, 2:30 p.m.

  Setting: Maps of low-income housing overys on one side; legal aid brochures on the other. Sunlight on a whiteboard beled “Mutuality ≠ Policy.”

  Jillian unrolls a diagram across the desk—FEMME Blog excerpts on one side, a corresponding civic matrix on the other.

  Jillian:

  “They didn’t write ws. But they mapped behavioral regurities.

  And these regurities—rotational trust, tethered cohabitation, memory-indexed intimacy—they’re urban stabilization functions in disguise.”

  Dr. Suárez (browsing):

  “You’re saying their domestic ritual maps function like soft zoning ordinances?”

  Jillian:

  “Exactly.

  FEMME is doing what post-liberal urbanism failed to do: repce colpsed family governance with eroticized micro-civic codes.”

  She flips to one line:

  “Custody doesn’t need paperwork. It needs rhythm.”

  Dr. Suárez (long pause):

  “You’re chasing ghosts with legal shadows.

  But honestly?

  This might be the closest thing I’ve seen to post-state feminist governance.

  Add it. But Jillian—make the model.

  If they’re writing myth, you draft the infrastructure.”

  Closing Montage:

  El, at her desk, types:

  “The FEMME Blog is ritual w in drift, awaiting codification. I approach it as scattered doctrine, not prose.”

  Jillian, designing a slide for her dissertation defense:

  “If zoning failed the domestic body, FEMME rebuilt it in rhythm.”

  Neither woman cims the blog is right.

  They only cim that it’s happening—and that academia, for once, is te.

  But not for long.

  ****

  Location: UC Davis – Graduate Policy Lab, Windowless Seminar Room

  Time: Late Night

  Characters: El Monroe, Jillian Kim

  The room is silent but electric. On the table:

  Printouts of the 6C Polygamy Law v1.2, marked and underlined

  FEMME Blog excerpts in the margins

  Legal pads filled with arrows, citations, and philosophical questions

  They begin by reading aloud. Article by article.

  El (reading):

  “Article A.3: Every wife has equal status under rotational schedule and custodial ledger…”

  She pauses. Gnces at Jillian.

  El:

  “This isn’t patriarchal pageantry.

  It’s coded order. Equalization through positioning, not abstraction.”

  Jillian:

  “Like assigning care through a time-banked trust.

  That’s not marriage. That’s domestic civic indexing.”

  Deconstruction Phase (Their Joint Notes):

  1. Status

  El’s Note: “Not legal romanticism. Status is technical. Time and ledger-based.”

  Jillian’s Note: “Removes emotional hierarchy—repces with spatial rhythm.”

  2. Anchor Model

  Jillian: “Anchor = civic male pceholder. Not emotional head. Just registrar.”

  El: “He tethers the wives to the w, not to himself.”

  3. Wife Femme Cuse

  Jillian: “Cuse transtes domestic bor into rotational public record.”

  El: “Legalizes shared female governance without nuclear family. This is post-Westphalian family logic.”

  4. Sexual Access Regution

  El (grimly): “Hard to swallow. But the regution of sex is less arbitrary here than in informal capitalist cohabitation.”

  Jillian: “Consent isn't erased—it’s scheduled and acknowledged. Scary. But legible.”

  5. Prohibition of Female-Female Marriage Without Anchor

  Jillian: “This is the break.

  No unanchored female domestic units. The male presence must exist—even symbolically.”

  El: “That’s the border between sacred structure and secur multiplicity.”

  Reconstruction Phase:

  They begin sketching what they call The 6C Domestic Framework, divided into 3 structural functions:

  1. Pcement over Emotion

  Love is not prerequisite.

  Entry into the system is through assignment and rhythm, not sentiment.

  2. Anchor-as-Civic-Ledger

  Men are not romantic authorities but custodial functions.

  Anchors log, rotate, and register—not rule.

  3. Femme Trust as Cohabitation Governance Unit

  Wives form the governing body.

  Trust-based households operate like civic micro-councils.

  The Wife Femme Cuse ensures bor is distributed, not assumed.

  Jillian (quietly):

  “This is not a morality system.

  It’s a domestic civic infrastructure—cloaked in scripture.”

  El:

  “And maybe the real question isn’t whether it’s ethical…

  but whether it’s scable.”

  They Stop. Look at the Law Again.

  Not as feminists.

  Not as critics.

  But as legal schors facing something new—not a relic, not a symbol, but a functioning system built from ritual, scripture, and administrative design.

  Final Scribbled Summary (on whiteboard):

  6C is not controlling women.

  6C is pcing them—

  And for many…

  That’s more than the West ever offered.

  They don't approve.

  They don't reject.

  They reconstruct—

  Because that's what schors do when they sense a system is still expanding.

  ***

  JILLIAN KIM’S PHD RESEARCH (Urban Gender Policy)

  Dissertation Title:

  “Femme Governance After the Colpse: Rebuilding Urban Domestic Infrastructure Through Legal Rhythm”

  Thesis Statement:

  Jillian argues that the 6C Wife Femme Cuse and Concubine Cuse constitute an emergent urban policy framework for post-familial societies. Despite their theological framing, these cuses fill a regutory vacuum left by the neoliberal retreat from domestic bor governance—especially in urban zones suffering from housing crises, care deserts, and informal female networks.

  Her Research Structure:

  Chapter 1: The Failure of Urban Gender Policy in the Post-Welfare City

  Case studies: Oaknd, Atnta, Detroit

  Data on single-woman households, rent stress, colpse of mutual aid infrastructure

  Chapter 2: The Femme Cuse as Shadow Zoning Code

  The 6C Wife Femme Cuse treated as a custodial zoning policy

  Rotation schedules, cohabitation registries, shared caregiving modeled like urban resource scheduling

  Chapter 3: Concubinage as Housing Stability Measure

  Comparison between concubinage and Western “dependent cohabitation”

  Reframing dependency as a registered civic function, not moral failure

  Chapter 4: Data Drift from the FEMME Blog

  FEMME writers treated as “unofficial civic designers”

  Their nguage converted into data: trust size, rotation time, household management logic

  Coding linguistic rituals into policy prototypes

  Chapter 5: Beyond Ideology—When Results Matter More

  A risky but honest reflection: 6C may outperform liberal systems in stability

  Her blind spot acknowledged—“If it works, it can’t be ignored.”

  Her Framing Logic (based on her profile):

  Focused on pragmatic implementation of civic stability

  Emphasizes structure over theory, outcomes over ideological coherence

  Suspicious of liberal idealism unless it transtes into shelter, rotation, and emotional safety

  ELLA MONROE’S PHD RESEARCH (Political Theory)

  Dissertation Title:

  “Sacred Rhythm and Sovereign Flesh: Codified Domesticity and the Colpse of Liberal Consent”

  Thesis Statement:

  El argues that the 6C Polygamy Law v1.2, and its embedded Wife Femme Cuse, represent not a regression but a political-theological reassertion of domestic sovereignty. Where liberal secur w dissolves the intimate body into abstraction, 6C w reconstitutes it through rhythm, pcement, and ritual governance—forcing a reconsideration of where justice truly begins.

  Her Research Structure:

  Chapter 1: The Liberal Myth of Private Consent

  Dissects how secur w privatized intimacy but failed to govern it

  Uses Arendt, Rawls, and Pateman to expose contradictions

  Chapter 2: Political Theology of the 6C Law

  Frames 6C as a biopolitical theocracy

  Pces Fatima Jawad in dialogue with Carl Schmitt and Foucault

  Argues that 6C doesn’t separate state and faith—it codes ritual into sovereignty

  Chapter 3: The Wife Femme Cuse as Ritual Law

  Ritual rotation becomes a form of time-sovereignty

  Rhythm becomes the legal repcement for secur consent

  Chapter 4: FEMME Blog as Oral Jurisprudence

  Each blog post decoded as proto-statutory fragments

  Draws parallels to rabbinic midrash and feminist theology

  Shows how the blog prefigures w through testimony and shared erotic memory

  Chapter 5: Moral Boundaries and the Pce of Justice

  Her most personal chapter: wrestling with how w built from hierarchy can still be more just than w built from abandonment

  Ends with a question, not an answer:

  “Is it better to live in unchosen pcement than in chosen invisibility?”

  Her Framing Logic (based on her profile):

  Rooted in coherent justice frameworks

  Seeks philosophical consistency, even when emotionally unsettling

  Unwilling to dismiss systems that work, even when they viote her normative ideals

  She is at risk of rigidity—but here, her growth toward openness is shown in her willingness to rebuild her definition of w itself

  Closing Parallel:

  Jillian builds infrastructure from drift, transting theology into zoning.

  El builds philosophy from architecture, transting governance into rhythm.

  Where Jillian sees civic failure answered by function,

  El sees moral colpse challenged by ritual.

  And neither of them will ever look at the word “w” the same way again.

  ***

  Scene 1: Jillian Kim Presents to Dr. Dana Suárez

  Location: Office of Dr. Suárez, Department of Urban Policy

  Time: Wednesday, 1:40 p.m.

  Details: Jillian brings a diagram-heavy PDF, a 3-page executive abstract, and housing maps annotated with 6C rotational household structures.

  Dr. Suárez (reviewing Jillian’s abstract):

  “You’re calling the Wife Femme Cuse a civic infrastructure?

  That’s... bold.”

  Jillian (calmly):

  “It’s not ideology I’m defending. It’s logistics.

  Liberal systems left a governance vacuum for non-nuclear, economically dependent women.

  6C filled it—with rhythm, rotation, and legally codified interdependence.

  If I treat it like zoning… it works. If I treat it like theology… I can’t touch it.

  So I’m treating it like hardware.”

  Dr. Suárez:

  “You’re aware you’re dissecting a theocracy and extracting policy? That will draw fire.”

  Jillian:

  “Yes.

  But I’m not interested in defending 6C morality.

  I’m interested in showing that urban policy failed to build what they accidentally did.

  And now—women are stabilizing under a system liberalism never imagined.”

  Dr. Suárez (after a long pause):

  “You’re on dangerous ground.

  But it’s original.

  Make it cold. Measurable. Impossible to ignore.

  Your blindspot is belief. Your weapon is function.”

  Jillian (nodding):

  “I’ll make sure it reads like a city pn. Not scripture.”

  Scene 2: El Monroe Presents to Dr. Harold Menkin

  Location: Office of Dr. Menkin, Department of Political Theory

  Time: Thursday, 10:05 a.m.

  Details: El arrives with a thesis map handwritten in bck ink, several annotated passages from the 6C w and FEMME Blog, and a draft table of political-theological concepts.

  El (reading her thesis intro aloud):

  “6C reorders the legal body—not through rights, but through rhythm.

  Its w begins where liberalism ends: the governance of intimacy, care, and pcement.

  My dissertation doesn’t ask ‘Is this just?’

  It asks: What does justice look like when autonomy dissolves and rhythm takes its pce?”

  Dr. Menkin (leans back, arms folded):

  “And you’ll be prepared to defend pcing theocratic structure next to Arendt, Foucault, and Rawls?”

  El:

  “Yes. Not as equals, but as challenges.

  6C doesn’t argue—it performs.

  And that makes it a political theology of the body.

  The Wife Femme Cuse is domestic sovereignty.

  The Concubine Cuse is post-consent pcement.

  And the FEMME Blog? It’s oral w—emerging in exile.”

  Dr. Menkin (slowly):

  “You’ve crossed into dangerous territory.

  But your framing is elegant. Unforgiving.

  You’re not writing theory anymore, El. You’re tracing the rise of a parallel jurisprudence.”

  El:

  “And that jurisprudence dares to do what liberal w won’t—pce the human, even imperfectly.”

  Dr. Menkin:

  “So. You’ve chosen to walk into the storm.

  Just don’t forget your compass.

  And cite Judith Butler more carefully—she’ll be watching.”

  Closing Image:

  Two advisors. Two students. Two dissertations.

  Neither apologizing. Neither evangelizing.

  Each one building a different map to the same seismic shift:

  When the state colpses into ambiguity,

  Rhythm rises as w.

  ***