Very good point.
If you think as I do that 2 adults having consensual sex is ethical, then I can’t see why this isn’t.
She is able to give genuine consent, she’s not forced or coerced and is free to say ‘No’ at any point, so it’s ethical.
If you have a narrower view of sexual behaviour and consider going to a strip club or engaging the services of a sex worker is unethical, then you may think this is too. Comes down to personal morals and ethics so there’s no absolute answer IMO.
Couldn’t agree more. In fact, my husband said as much too. There’s a huge difference between thinking something is unethical or not and engaging in the behavior yourself.
I think I was both right and wrong in declaring that you sound like him because he did both - he claimed consent was insufficient for activity to be ethical and then he basically implied true consent was impossible for Beth. That’s why I think his argument was logically unsound. But his basic premise was, ‘‘It’s unethical to loan people out, period.’’ (Because he says so, I guess.)
Not that mine’s airtight or anything. ‘‘People should be able to do what they want in bed’’ is really just a gut feeling I have. And I am going to err on the side of freedom in most cases rather than restrict others’ sexual freedoms, unless there is strong evidence that the engagement will likely lead to harm to one or both parties.
I want to clarify the mental state of each participant in my story. Kale had attempted suicide after a breakup roughly one year prior to the story’s beginning and was more or less in recovery when he made the choice to have sex wtih Beth. Beth is more in the middle of her shit but she’s getting it together and exploring her options.
It seems that Sr. Weasel does not really understand consent, particularly dom/sub, and is also really patronizing toward those with different tastes than himself. (This strikes me as particularly odd and regrettable, if I remember correctly the suggestions you’ve given of the nature of your own relationship.)
This is the key. What happens to Beth in this story is not up to Judd. It’s up to Beth.
This is what I do think he fails to grasp about the dom/sub dynamic… in a healthy BDSM relationship, the sub is always in complete control. I have been slowly educating him about this, and he’s not close-minded to the whole thing in general, just certain aspects of it. But he is super monogamous by nature, and has a difficult time thinking outside the box. He wouldn’t try to restrict the sexual activity of others except in obvious cases of abuse and exploitation, but not everything sits right with him. I’m just more sexually liberal, I guess.
We’re actually doing quite well right now, in part because I’m able to share this part of myself with him now, and I refused to discuss it before. FWIW he’s never made me feel bad about my own sexual interests. There is no tragedy here, other than the tragedy that I didn’t have these conversations with him sooner.
Yeah, but there’s no conflict between ‘People should be able to do what they want in bed’ and ‘I think that sexual behaviour is unethical’. That’s what I’ve been trying to say in this thread, repeatedly. It’s perfectly possible to think that a sexual behaviour a) is unethical and b) should not be restricted in any way.
I know. I’m sorry if I’m not being clear. That was his position too.
- The sex in this story is unethical.
- That doesn’t mean it should be restricted.
The three of us - you, my husband, and me, all agree that just because we view something as unethical doesn’t mean it should be restricted.
I disagree that the sex in my story is unethical but I agree there are some issues there that might make it murky. But even though I think it’s ethical doesn’t mean I want to do it!
This is a totally random aside but I remember reading that women are significantly less likely to want to act on their sexual fantasies than men. Perhaps there is part of the conflict? He might have worried I wanted to act on it, even if I said I didn’t, merely because I chose to write a fantasy about it. Maybe he couldn’t read it without imagining himself in that role and how oogy that would feel for him.
I’m “repulsed by the very notion” as well. However, my revulsion extends only as far as I or my man is being “loaned out.” For everyone else, more power to you.
I think there needs to be delineation between “willing consent” and “reluctant consent.” A submissive might consent to something that he or she objects to - such as, in the fictional story, being “loaned out” for sex to someone else - out of fear of consequences if such consent is not given - if the submissive does not go along with it (i.e., the dominant partner might say, “You can say no, but if you do, it means the end of our relationship”.)
“Consent” in that sort of situation might not be genuine, true consent.
We’re reaching the limits of my insight into BDSM relationships but it would seem to me that ‘you can say no, but that means the end of our relationship’ would be an unhealthy, emotionally manipulative scenario that undermines consent, and that most people advocating the ‘‘safe, sane consensual’’ framework would reject such a scenario as unethical.
This is also where fantasy/reality gets tricky. I’m turned on by the idea of reluctant sex as a fantasy mechanism. I find it morally repugnant in real life. When I write such things I constantly have to ask myself where to draw the line to be a socially responsible human being. It’s possible I played up the reluctance angle of this story beyond the average person’s comfort zone. It’s not a threat to me because I am in control of everything I write so any aspect of reluctance is essentially an illusion, but it might read very differently to the person not writing it.
FWIW, this made my day.
I don’t know where the line is either, in reality. But in my fictionally constructed scenario this particular person has 100% agency. My general POV is that if a person is of age, of reasonably sound mind, and feels their activity is a positive experience for them, it’s not my place to tell them they don’t know their own wants and needs. If they turn out to wrong and consequences are harmful, well shit, we all have moments of poor judgment and we have to live with the consequences of that. I’ve allowed myself to be pressured into sexual activity before (with the first boyfriend I ever had, back when I was 17), I was particularly vulnerable due to my abuse history, he completely fabricated his own story of abuse to emotionally manipulate me into it. It wasn’t a great feeling, I didn’t like it, I felt used, I wrote a poem about it, I got over it, I learned from the experience, and I didn’t allow it to happen again. It was 100% consensual and still not good for me and I somehow managed to survive and go on to write dorky erotic fiction. I’m not afraid of the consequences of my choices and I’d be pretty damned resentful of anyone who tried to shield me from them.
Reading the OP, I assumed that Sr. Weasel was your father. While a bit weird to share your erotica with your dad, I was going to chalk it up to a healthy mature relationship with your parent. I was relieved to read later on that Sr. Weasel is your husband.
You’re the author - you can judge whatever you want.
And once you ask the question, ISTM that you are inviting others to judge, even to the extent of saying something other than “it’s fine” or “it’s none of my business”. Agreed?
That having been said, I would say that the described scenario is wrong. I don’t know if you are drawing a distinction between unethical and immoral, but it is IMO wrong. Consent is not enough to establish any act as ethical or right or whatever you like to call it.
The idea of irrevocable consent has already been raised. IOW marital rape is still a moral wrong. Burning your partner’s arm with a cigarette if she does something that displeases you is morally wrong, even if she tells you “I agreed to stay with him no matter what”. Consent is not the be-all and end-all.
This particular scenario, where someone loans out a partner to someone else, is morally wrong for a different reason.
Sex is part of the emotional pair-bonding between two people. That’s its basic purpose, and that’s what its for. Sex with someone outside the two people tends to work against that purpose. Therefore, that kind of sex is wrong, and loaning out a partner is also wrong.
Keep in mind that the judgment that it is morally wrong does not necessarily mean that it must necessarily be illegal. Not everything that is illegal is wrong, and not everything that is wrong is illegal. Because not every sort of wrongdoing should be, or on a practical level can be, addressed by the state. But individuals can decide that it is wrong nonetheless, and shape their attitudes and even their behavior accordingly. It’s like the Nazis marching thru Skokie - what they advocate is morally wrong, and I can jeer at them from the sidelines or instruct my children to avoid them and Pit them and hold to public ridicule, even though I don’t believe their march should be outlawed.
Who am I to judge? I am a rational adult. And you did ask.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, it is a very murky issue. It might be more subtle than that - a submissive might not fear that the relationship will be *terminated *per se, but she may know that if she says “no,” that she will disappoint the dominant partner or that it will not bode well for the relationship, and so hence still feel internal pressure to say “yes” whether she really likes being loaned out or not.
I think you’re kind of reaching. So far in this thread you’ve considered the possibilities that he might think this is unethical because he’s worried that you want to act on your fantasies, because he’s naturally monogamous, and I think there were others… Those feel like attempts to avoid the possibility that he just genuinely thinks it’s unethical.
In particular, it doesn’t seem like his monogamy has anything to do with it, since it’s not the three-people aspect he’s objecting to. FWIW, I’m also naturally monogamous, and I don’t think there’s anything remotely unethical about threesomes, say, or polygamy. They’re not for me, but if they’re making people happy and not hurting anyone, then they’re good things.
I have a Sr. Weasel too!
Ha, eww. No, it’s an abbreviation for Senor (sorry no accent) Weasel, as I used to speak a lot of Spanish. I’d change it to Dr. Weasel now that he’s graduated but that seems a bit pretentious.
I’m not offended if people see things differently than me. Just curious. Thanks everyone for your input.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Apparently quite a few people find that bringing other sexual partners into their relationship actually improves their relationship.
Sex is “for” perpetuating the species. That’s pretty much it.
Everything else we put on it is cultural (and personal) baggage. Each one of us, as our own rational adult person, has a worldview that sees sex as being “for” various things, none of which are absolute.
Shodan says they see sex as an activity between one couple to aid in relationship-building.
Someone who is aromantic may see sex as a pleasurable physical activity like getting a massage or taking a nice bath. The identity of the sex partner may or may not actually be important to them, as compared to the quality of the physical activity.
Someone in a poly relationship may see sex as part of the way they relate to the other members of their polycule - no matter how many of them there are, or how romantic or not the individual relationships are between individuals.
Someone who has a particular kink may see sex as a part of exploring that kink (some don’t) and not particularly care WHO they’re exploring with, as long as it is a person who is trustworthy and the situation is safe.
Other than some types of relationships that MOST modern cultures have decided are non-starters, there’s a whole spectrum of relationship types and attitudes towards sex. It’s awfully presumptuous to say that only the ones that make sense to me (only the ones I personally enjoy? only the ones I feel comfortable with?) are “right.”
The issues of abuse and “true consent” here seem to me to be too murky and too freighted with individually-interpreted baggage to try and make any sort of absolute judgement. It’s all individual. What would be very “wrong” for John Doe, and possibly even psychologically harmful or traumatic, could very well just be another interesting kinky escapade for Jane Smith. Likewise, John Smith might feel utterly confined and unhappy in a single forever pair-bonded sexual relationship, but Jane Doe is monogamous and genuinely contented to be having sex with only her spouse for life.
Sex is like food - we’re too keyed into our own wants and desires - and more importantly to our NOT wants and our disgusts - to ever be free of the instant “oh YUCK” instinct. Look at all the threads about well-done steak in CS for pete’s sake. If we’re careful, we can back away a bit, but our first reactions are based on what we picture experiencing ourselves, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, just not particularly helpful when deciding as a culture what is healthy and sustainable and worthy of being called normal/good/right.
Since this is IMHO, I don’t think we need cites. But I don’t believe this. I expect that vastly more people find the introduction of other partners is the end of the relationship.
Sure, but perpetuating the species means raising viable offspring to maturity. Since human children have unusually large brains, they need much longer periods of dependency and childhood, during which they need to be supported. A threat to the relationship of the parents is therefore a threat to the perpetuation of the species.
It isn’t, therefore, just a matter of personal preference.
Regards,
Shodan