Is consent sufficient for sexual activity to be ethical?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Warning and/or Good news! Frank talk of kinky BDSM sex to follow.

I wrote an erotic short story that pissed Sr. Weasel off. He has always been more conservative than me on sexual matters and he claims that I am extraordinarily liberal on them, so I’m curious where our views really stack up in the general scheme of things.

I am not claiming this was a realistic work of great literature or anything, but the basic premise of the story was that a woman, Beth, and a man, Judd, had engaged in a kind of BDSM contract where he played a dominant/mentor role in trying to help her work out her anxiety issues. Beth and Judd aren’t madly in love or anything, there is nothing exclusive about their relationship.

The protagonist of the story, Kale, is Judd’s cousin, who is recovering from a bad breakup and severe depression. Beth accidentally publicly humiliates Kale at a dinner party by unwittingly referencing his attempted suicide when she first meets him. Beth is left feeling incredibly guilty and anxious for this social faux pas, and Kale is embarrassed and angry that this pretty stranger knows this stigmatizing thing about him thanks to Judd’s big mouth.

Judd decides to address the issue by sending Beth to Kale’s house and assigning her to be his ‘‘sex slave’’ for the weekend. Beth has a lot of anxiety about this proposition (as she does about virtually everything in her life) but she is genuinely interested in Kale and she had agreed to follow Judd’s orders. Kale is initially horrified and then reticent and then realizes Beth is interested in him, and kinky dominant/submissive bondage sex ensues. At the end, they make an emotional connection and more or less hook up to the extent you can have a Happily Ever After in a BDSM short story. Turns out Judd was playing matchmaker all along. Awww.

I thought this was a relatively benign plot but **Sr. Weasel **was repulsed by the very notion that people can loan out other people for sex. He was unmoved by the fact that Beth was fully engaged in a consensual relationship with Judd, a man whom she trusted completely, in which she agreed that she wanted to be told what to do and to have her limits pushed. This is where he said, ‘‘Consent is a requirement for sex, but consent is not sufficient for the sex to be ethical.’’ In his mind Beth is being sexually exploited. (FWIW, he won’t attend strip clubs or watch porn for the same reason, so he’s nothing if not consistent.)

I told him that was patriarchal, benevolent sexist bullshit and if Beth wants to engage in a dominant-submissive relationship with clear limits that includes sex with other people, there is absolutely nothing wrong if she does so, and absolutely nothing wrong either Judd or Kale for participating. Even in the exchange between Beth and Kale, she has a safeword to stop at any time and trusts he will honor it. Since she doesn’t know Kale, her trust in him is really an extension of her trust in Judd’s judgment, but it’s still grounded in trust.

His argument is that his feelings were the same regardless of Beth’s gender, but if she would engage in such a contract with a man who would loan her out sexually, she’s not mentally capable of true consent. This seems like circular logic to me. Basically anything he deems as morally wrong is wrong because it’s not consensual and it’s not consensual because he views it as morally wrong. He also thinks the ‘‘slave/master’’ lingo in BDSM is repugnant because actual sex slaves are a thing. He is not against BDSM generally, just certain expressions of it, I guess. For example, in my novel I have a bondage scene between my two main protagonists and he was fine with it, I guess because it takes place between two people in monogamous love.

But he has no ethical problem with poly relationships, either. I guess it’s the loaning out and use of the term ‘‘slave’’ that really bugs him.

Keep in mind we’re not talking about dubious issues of consent, like being underage, being too intoxicated, or just being too afraid to say ‘‘no,’’ we’re talking about two grown-ass adults with clear interest in one another engaging in a dominant-submissive contract for one weekend. It’s not my personal flavor of submission but if Beth wants to engage in such a contract, who am I to judge? I feel like this is relatively mild compared to what some people do, and I don’t begrudge them doing the wilder stuff, either.

What’s your take, both on this particular scenario and the issue in general? Which one of us is the freakiest, or are we at both ends of the extreme?

2

“Ethical” has lots of different meanings here. Some of us hold BDSM to be unethical, right on the face of it, as it involves tying-up, (mild) striking, emotional abuse, etc.

Others say it’s weird and maybe repulsive, but if everyone is fully consenting, then it’s “okay.” It’s not “unethical” to the degree that we feel a need to condemn it. (As an example, I feel a need to condemn burning, cutting, branding, and scarring as sex acts, even if fully consensual.)

There’s plenty of room for both viewpoints…or for more than two.

My actual opinion is that, so long as there’s no permanent damage done, everyone consents, and there’s a “safe word” to prevent feigned cries of distress from becoming real cries of distress…then go ahead and engage in your fantasies. Whaddevva.

(It’s a form of porn I will not watch.)

3

I guess Sr. Weasel sees more to Beth and Judd’s relationship than there actually is. It’s like fuck buddies willing to set each other up with people they could form serious relationships with. Everybody living happily ever after shows nothing was wrong. You can’t even say Judd was wrong not to tell Beth he expected her to form a relationship with Kale because culturally we think that’s fine when everybody lives happily ever after. You need to give that a movie treatment.

4

I guess that’s the reason I’m using a specific example, because ‘‘BDSM’’ is like ‘‘LGBTQ’’ in the sense that it covers a huge and diverse spectrum of people. It can range from light bondage in a monogamous relationship to poly relationships or orgies or permanent scarring or emotional abuse as you have noted. It’s a very non-specific term. Some of it freaks me the fuck out, but I’m going out on a limb and guessing the percentage that freaks me the fuck out is lower than for the average person. I’m not into extreme pain or emotional abuse but if I expect my own proclivities to be respected, I feel obligated to respect those of others to the extent that seems reasonable. There are certain, very unfortunate people who have no ethical choice but to keep it in their pants (pedophiles, for instance) but for many of us freaky types there’s plenty of wiggle room within the confines of fully consenting adult relationships.

There’s a big difference between saying ‘‘that’s weird and I don’t get it,’’ and ‘‘that’s sexual exploitation and morally wrong.’’ If the consenting adults in question do not feel they are being exploited, who are we to tell them they are?

For the sake of devil’s advocate, let’s take the most extreme real-life example I can think of - that murder case about that guy who consented to be eaten for the sexual gratification of another man. I think most people would agree the victim was probably not in a mental state capable of true consent. I’m comfortable saying that was wrong.

But where do we draw the line? Tripolar says ‘‘permanent damage,’’ but then couldn’t Sr. Weasel argue that Beth is consenting to permanent emotional damage somehow? That’s much more subjective than an actual physical scar.

[QUOTE=TriPolar]
I guess Sr. Weasel sees more to Beth and Judd’s relationship than there actually is. It’s like fuck buddies willing to set each other up with people they could form serious relationships with. Everybody living happily ever after shows nothing was wrong. You can’t even say Judd was wrong not to tell Beth he expected her to form a relationship with Kale because culturally we think that’s fine when everybody lives happily ever after. You need to give that a movie treatment.
[/QUOTE]

Well, yeah, it’s just a sex fantasy, not a literary masterpiece. But I don’t think the strength of the bond was an issue for Sr. Weasel. He would think it is wrong in any relationship of any strength or trust level to form an agreement that you could be loaned out for sex. It’s not something I personally want, but I don’t understand at all the mentality that it’s sexual exploitation, or that it’s impossible to truly consent to something like that.

5

Because you’re just not into it, or because you have an ethical problem with it?

6

Your husband is incorrect consent is’nt all that is needed for sex to be ethical.

He’s arguing from a slippery slope. I’d point out to him this is the same line of logic people use to use why gay people shouldn’t be screwing.

It’s nobody’s place to judge what others are doing behind closed doors.

7

So, serious question. Are you cool with that guy consenting to be killed, cooked, and eaten for another man’s sexual gratification?

8

Loaning a submissive is something that is done. Calling her “slave” isn’t particularly uncommon. I have zero ethical issue with either but then again I’m not foreign to D/s relationship. I agree that Sr. Weasel reasonning is rather circular, but not completely absurd. For instance, in an infamous German case, a man very unambiguously consented to be murdered and eaten. Few people would agree that consent is sufficient in such a case, even though the man seemed of otherwise sound mind. So, it’s a matter of where you decide to draw the line, which is very subjective. UK jurisprence, for instance, permit the prosecution as assault of BDSM practices that results is bodily harm (even against the wishes of the “victim”).

But here, what is the harm done to the woman exactly? She has a kind of sex she likes with a man she desires. If your partner is fine with both polyamory and D/s relationships, as you said, I really fail to see why exactly he thinks she is being exploited, and that her consent is invalid. I also don’t even see in what way this could be compared with a porn actress or stripper situation (even if we accept the premise that porn actresses and strippers are being exploited), so I don’t see any consistency here, either.
That said, I have an issue of my own with your scenario : the Dominant playing therapist and pushing the submissive in a situation where she apparently suffers from a genuine disorder. That’s a perilous endeavour.

9

In theory, yes. I believe anyone of sound mind should have the right to end their life if they want to.

But your question poses a whole lot of unknowns that are concerning.

So, I’ll amend my previous post and say there are limits. Where exactly those lines should be drawn, I don’t know.

10

I’m not Grrr!, but I’m ‘cool’ with the guy consenting. I’m also very cool with the chef spending a lifetime in prison for carrying it out. Just because the partner says “kill me” should not absolve the other of the crime of murder. If the entree should kill himself, I hope that there is some law on the book to still send the chef away for the rest of his unnatural life.

11

Honestly, my husband is a psychologist; I’m surprised THAT part didn’t piss him off the most. I don’t think exactly Judd was playing a therapeutic role, and least not in a formal ‘‘I am going to treat your mental illness’’ sense. There’s a backstory to their relationship not included in the story itself and at the risk of making this story seem even more absolutely fucking ridiculous, Judd and Beth had bonded on a philosophical level and were more playing around with applying the theoretical underpinnings of Victor Frankl’s existential philosophy (that is, the deliberate creation of meaning to cope with suffering) to the realm of sex. There’s a point where Beth brings up Frankl’s book ‘‘Man’s Search for Meaning’’ to try to explain to Kale what Judd is trying to do.

I’m not a normal person, I’m sorry.

12

Truth be told, I am more embarrassed to publicly admit that I tried to work existentialism into my wank material than the fact I am into BDSM.

But hopefully it underscores the banality of the whole thing. Yes, she has an anxiety disorder, but she’s not being manipulated, she’s making an intentional choice.

13

Treating another person as an object to be lent or borrowed isn’t ethical regardless of the other person’s consent.

It’s got nothing to do with the sex of any of the people involved, or with whether Beth is capable of full consent (for the sake of the hypothetical, I’m assuming she is), or whether she’s being exploited (which it doesn’t particularly sound like she is), or whether it does her harm. It has to do with the fact that there’s a difference between a person and a lawnmower. If you do something that negates that difference, like ‘lending’ a person to someone else for a weekend, that’s not ethical.

14

Bingo. Nothing at all unethical about a nonviolent, consensual relationship, of any variety.

15

So, you sound like my husband.

My rebuttal would be that Beth isn’t really being treated like an object to be lent or borrowed. Judd does not regard her as a lawnmower.

‘‘Loaned out’’ is shorthand for ‘‘I have a personal relationship with this woman interested in exploring various aspects of the D/s relationship and part of our mutual agreement is to help push her to explore her own limits within a safe, sane and consensual context. She has sufficient trust in me to agree to sleep with people I tell her to, with the understanding that she can stop at any time if she feels her limits are being pushed too far, and she knows I will not abuse that trust. We have discussed, at length, what sorts of scenarios she is okay with and what her hard limits are. We both agree that this contract is in the interest of her own personal sexual fulfillment.’’

So, what’s the big deal?

16

I’m sorry, but your husband sounds utterly insufferable.

It’s fine, and actually quite hot.

17

This is silly. What they are engaged in is a form of role-play. Which either participate can disengage with at any time.

18

My husband is my hero, but, as with the vast majority of relationships, we don’t agree on everything. Fortunately, we are both the monogamous sort and I have no interest in being loaned out, so our differences of opinion on this subject have no real-world bearing on our relationship.

I really only constructed the ‘‘loaning out’’ scenario as a way to get two acquaintances into a D/s relationship they wouldn’t otherwise have. It’s just a plot device.

It just seems kind of ridiculous to harp on it because it wouldn’t have been any meaningfully different if Judd had said, ''Hey, wanna go have sexual escapades with my cousin for a weekend? Would you be into that?" And she’d have been like, ''Gosh, do you think he’d really do that?" but I swear to you if that whole exchange had taken place he would have been fine with it, just the fact that in the context of the role play it’s prefaced as an ‘‘order’’ is what bugs him.

It’s like… ugh, I’m sorry, but BDSM is like philosophy in the sense that words have very specific meanings and there’s a shit ton of historical context behind everything done and said and if you aren’t familiar with all that context it maybe doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Yup.

19

If you fudged about your age a little we may just be related. Everything else sounds like my one niece. :slight_smile:

20

I’m 33, FWIW.

Ironically, he actually blames my Aunt for this. She was my biggest role model growing up, like a wise older sister, and extremely sexually liberal. She never did any BDSM stuff but she was single for a long time and had multiple sexual relationships she was quite open about (once I became of age for that sort of talk) so she very much influenced my sexual ethics. I know about Madonna’s Sex Book, for example, because of my Aunt and her gay best friend who were huge Madonna fans and talked often about what a role model she was for sexual liberation. That was especially important for me as an abuse survivor, to have a role model hammering home the point that sex should be a happy mutually enjoyable consensual experience free from shame. I am both grateful and proud to have had that influence and I attempt with my writing to reflect that.

I don’t think her beliefs are all that radical, especially because most of our peers are pretty much on the same page, but when we were having this argument he remarked that my views on sex are distorted because my Aunt’s were so liberal.

So I decided to post here just to get a sense of what ‘‘the general population’’ thinks, not that the Dope is exactly a representative sample of the entire human population, but it’s at least the population I care the most about.