Awesome read! Also wanted to point out that viewing sex exclusively through the consent framework tends to put sex work in a weird place. Sex work occupies a weird place in general, but there's some unfortunately mainstream ideas (like the association with human trafficking - when many sex workers aren't trafficked, and many human trafficking victims aren't sex workers. A lot of them are farm, domestic or construction workers).
Great read! One thought, re: 'What you like is playing a game where your partner pretends to disrespect you.' If it is assumed that 'enjoying pretending to be disrespected' has no relationship to 'actually being disrespected' I think it then becomes unnecessarily hard to explain. It seems more likely that it is the ambiguity which is exciting, the risk of slippages between 'pretending to disrespect someone' and 'disrespecting someone' and the more fundamental slippage between pretending and [whatever the opposite of pretending is]. In other words, I don't think 'playing a game' is the right analogy here; at least, in a game like football, there is no ambiguity at all between the rule-bound game and the outside world; if someone breaks the rules, the game stops; the game is a self-sufficient world. It seems that the element of play in BDSM is precisely the opposite of that; the thrill relates to ambiguity. I say this without having any personal experience, though; it just struck me that there is something interesting about how the concept of game is used here.
I really like this articulation of why people push the definition of "consent" past a reasonable point, and why it's bad. To add on to your point about how people think of "1 in 6 women", I've also seen people think that phrases like "unable to resist because they're high or drunk" mean that someone had lowered inhibitions/standards because of intoxication and had sex that they regretted in the morning, when it's really stuff like the victim not having the wherewithal or coordination to push away an attacker.
In general, I think the expansion of "can't consent", beyond people who are genuinely unable to express whether they want something or not, is deeply dehumanizing, Frankly, when people say that someone "can't consent", they're typically reserving the right to violate their genuine, clearly articulated consent when it's convenient for society.
During the first part of this post I felt like it was leading towards a different form of consent-based sexual ethics that it turned out to not be leading towards. But I honestly think that version makes more sense, or at least is more clearly actionable, so here it is:
Consent is not really the reason why acts are moral per se. No act is immoral solely because it's nonconsensual (or you couldn't exist in public because nobody has consented to see you). Rather, consent is a moral defense to actions that would otherwise be immoral for a variety of different reasons.
Hitting your partner is immoral in the absence of consent because it hurts them, but consent is a defense to that because if you wanted to be hurt, then you're not really being hurt. Being very reckless about STDs is immoral because it could hurt your partner, but again, if you (say) tell your partner you're HIV positive and they still consent that's not immoral, because at that point they are aware of the possible harms and voluntarily accepted them. Cheating on your partner is immoral because you're breaking a promise that was foundational to your relationship, but if they consent to you "cheating" then you're not in fact breaking any promise.
Consent isn't a perfect defense, though, and can't defeat every possible reason why sex could be immoral. In particular, it usually doesn't work if the issue is a power imbalance: whether or not you can consent to sex with your boss, it doesn't make what your boss is doing okay. I think because the potential harm there is itself a violation of consent, so to appeal to consent to absolve it is kind of circular.
> Cheating on your partner is wrong. I have seen people argue that this is because your partner didn’t consent. Who else gets to consent to sex they’re not involved in?
This is basically what communities like r/polyamory believe, and I think it's a mistaken account of why polyamory is okay but cheating isn't. No, you don't get to "consent" to sex that you're not involved in. Cheating on your partner is wrong because you and your partner made an agreement, akin to a contract, not to do certain things and you violated that agreement. It is *not* morally equivalent to sexual assault.
Great post! I agree with almost everything. My one point of disagreement is about the badness of a therapist having sex with their client; it seems to me that the real bad thing is the false memory implantation and other manipulative or dishonest tactics to gain power over the client. Those things would be bad even if there were no sex involved, and if those things *aren't* occurring, I don't really see any problem with them having sex?
Awesome read! Also wanted to point out that viewing sex exclusively through the consent framework tends to put sex work in a weird place. Sex work occupies a weird place in general, but there's some unfortunately mainstream ideas (like the association with human trafficking - when many sex workers aren't trafficked, and many human trafficking victims aren't sex workers. A lot of them are farm, domestic or construction workers).
Great read! One thought, re: 'What you like is playing a game where your partner pretends to disrespect you.' If it is assumed that 'enjoying pretending to be disrespected' has no relationship to 'actually being disrespected' I think it then becomes unnecessarily hard to explain. It seems more likely that it is the ambiguity which is exciting, the risk of slippages between 'pretending to disrespect someone' and 'disrespecting someone' and the more fundamental slippage between pretending and [whatever the opposite of pretending is]. In other words, I don't think 'playing a game' is the right analogy here; at least, in a game like football, there is no ambiguity at all between the rule-bound game and the outside world; if someone breaks the rules, the game stops; the game is a self-sufficient world. It seems that the element of play in BDSM is precisely the opposite of that; the thrill relates to ambiguity. I say this without having any personal experience, though; it just struck me that there is something interesting about how the concept of game is used here.
I really like this articulation of why people push the definition of "consent" past a reasonable point, and why it's bad. To add on to your point about how people think of "1 in 6 women", I've also seen people think that phrases like "unable to resist because they're high or drunk" mean that someone had lowered inhibitions/standards because of intoxication and had sex that they regretted in the morning, when it's really stuff like the victim not having the wherewithal or coordination to push away an attacker.
In general, I think the expansion of "can't consent", beyond people who are genuinely unable to express whether they want something or not, is deeply dehumanizing, Frankly, when people say that someone "can't consent", they're typically reserving the right to violate their genuine, clearly articulated consent when it's convenient for society.
During the first part of this post I felt like it was leading towards a different form of consent-based sexual ethics that it turned out to not be leading towards. But I honestly think that version makes more sense, or at least is more clearly actionable, so here it is:
Consent is not really the reason why acts are moral per se. No act is immoral solely because it's nonconsensual (or you couldn't exist in public because nobody has consented to see you). Rather, consent is a moral defense to actions that would otherwise be immoral for a variety of different reasons.
Hitting your partner is immoral in the absence of consent because it hurts them, but consent is a defense to that because if you wanted to be hurt, then you're not really being hurt. Being very reckless about STDs is immoral because it could hurt your partner, but again, if you (say) tell your partner you're HIV positive and they still consent that's not immoral, because at that point they are aware of the possible harms and voluntarily accepted them. Cheating on your partner is immoral because you're breaking a promise that was foundational to your relationship, but if they consent to you "cheating" then you're not in fact breaking any promise.
Consent isn't a perfect defense, though, and can't defeat every possible reason why sex could be immoral. In particular, it usually doesn't work if the issue is a power imbalance: whether or not you can consent to sex with your boss, it doesn't make what your boss is doing okay. I think because the potential harm there is itself a violation of consent, so to appeal to consent to absolve it is kind of circular.
> Cheating on your partner is wrong. I have seen people argue that this is because your partner didn’t consent. Who else gets to consent to sex they’re not involved in?
This is basically what communities like r/polyamory believe, and I think it's a mistaken account of why polyamory is okay but cheating isn't. No, you don't get to "consent" to sex that you're not involved in. Cheating on your partner is wrong because you and your partner made an agreement, akin to a contract, not to do certain things and you violated that agreement. It is *not* morally equivalent to sexual assault.
Great post! I agree with almost everything. My one point of disagreement is about the badness of a therapist having sex with their client; it seems to me that the real bad thing is the false memory implantation and other manipulative or dishonest tactics to gain power over the client. Those things would be bad even if there were no sex involved, and if those things *aren't* occurring, I don't really see any problem with them having sex?