Consent: What if it's Not Required?

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Something troubles me about the poly philosophies we've encountered on Polyamory.com lately. Let me try to explain it in context.

My older brother has been a regular (monogamous) guy. Then his (then) wife cheated on him (with an older guy -- a politician in fact, what a shock right). I don't know the details but they ended up getting divorced, and my older brother ended up with a lot of damage (emotional, legal, financial, etc.).

Recently, I have been outing myself to my brother. I have been telling him that I've become polyamorous, and what that means. Since he is new to the idea of polyamory, I assured him that one of the most important tenets of polyamory is that it can't be done unless all the adults involved have full knowledge and give full consent. My brother strongly agreed. What possibly hurt him the most about what his ex-wife did is that she didn't bother asking for my brother's consent.

In my perspective, consent is one of the pillars (or the prime pillar) holding polyamory up. It's the one thing that makes polyamory a valid relationship model.

Recently, I told my brother about this website. So it is possible that he may pay us a visit (probably as just a lurker). I'm nervous about what he may find, because I don't think we're consistent!

If we encounter someone who's in my brother's shoes, we tend to say, "Don't let her do it unless she gets your consent! She's just trying to cheat and manipulate you into giving your consent. Tell her you have conditions that must be met too!"

But, if someone posts who's in my brother's ex-wife's shoes, we tend to say, "Don't let him rule your life by the withholding of his consent! If you need poly to make you a happy person, you tell him that's how it's gonna be, and he can divorce you if he wants!"

And I'm asking, are we upholding the necessity of mutual consent like we should? How do we define the difference between a marriage in which consent is needed, and a marriage in which consent is not needed?

I have helped myself to some cinnamon Jack Daniel's, so I may not be presenting my case very well. But my question is, how to we tell the difference between a situation that requires consent, and a situation that does not require consent?

Was my brother wronged when an affair was had without his knowledge and consent? If so, how do we tell that? How do we tell if it's a situation where consent is not required?

Does that make sense?
Sincerely,
Kevin T.
 
I would say yes, it's cheating. If you're doing something your partner doesn't know about, or something they've told you they're unwilling to tolerate but you do it anyway, I personally would define that as cheating. That's just me.

I agree with nycyndie that "consent" and "permission" are two different things. I struggled with that for a while with Hubby, well before we opened the marriage. I was afraid he would get angry with me if I did something he didn't want me to do, so I constantly asked him "Is it okay if I..." (go to a friend's house, go out to dinner with a group of friends, etc.) I was asking his *permission.*

He finally got fed up with it and said, "You're not a child, I'm not your parent. You don't need my permission to do whatever you want to do. I appreciate that you want to let me know you're doing these things, but stop asking me if you're allowed to do them."

After that, and especially since we opened the marriage, I've learned to phrase things differently. Instead of "is it okay if...", I now say "I'm planning to do this, are you okay with it?" I've learned to ask for his *consent*. Which is still my choice because I'm more comfortable hearing from him that what I'm doing won't cause issues between him and me; he doesn't even necessarily care if he knows where I am sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Well, I think this was the very issue raised in JOA's thread and subsequent threads after that.

To answer, I think that the people involved in an intimate relationship are individuals. On this forum, we (as a forum) try and give people poly related advice that will improve their personal happiness. They come and outline what they view as obstacles to their contentedness and we help them find ways around those obstacles whilst maintaining key principles of polyamory. The issue is that much of the advice we give any individual regarding improving their personal happiness is going to mean them severing ties with the people that are perhaps inadvertently being that stubborn obstacle. Thus, the spouse who is being held back from their "true poly self" may have to be sacrificed if they cannot jump aboard, or at least permit the ship to sail. The spouse who is being ripped apart by their valiant attempts to accept their poly partner is told to find one of the many people who want the same relationship structure as them.

Despite this, I will definitely support the notion that even within this general framework for handling this issue, we are inconsistent. I will put forward that this is gender-based. We are generally more tolerant of the "wannabe-poly" wife than we are the "wannabe-poly" husband. We suggest that the female partner push her male partner more than we would the other way around. We push males to consider their family and whether this poly desire is a silly fantasy more than we do females. We are less likely to question whether a woman is saturated (and not recognizing it) but quite readily imply a man is being greedy or selfish or just wrong.

I do not think this is specific to this forum, nor do I think it is the worst polyamory forum for this issue. I think a very popular kink social networking site is actually horrific in its treatment of men. I actually had the awful experience of a partner writing about an issue we were having on there, and they assumed that I was male and just completely twisted the issue out of all recognizable context. By the end of the thread we were heterosexual married childhood sweethearts with a couple of kids. It was somewhere between hilarious and terrifying. Anywho, as someone who is gender fluid and has experienced both male privilege and some of the social disadvantages that can arise from being male, I notice it.
 
Consent and permission are the same thing. They are synonyms.

Consent is always required. I'm not sure the advice on here is all that inconsistent. Usually I see people give choices. "If your partner does not consent you can A, B or C."
 
Re (from nycindie):
"The first thing that popped into my head after reading your post is that 'consent' and 'permission' are two different things ..."

I believe I'd like to know what the difference is! :)

Re (from Inyourendo):
"Is it cheating if the wife informs her husband that she will no longer remain monogamous but he doesn't consent?"

Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing that's been bugging me.

Re (from KC43):
"If you're doing something your partner doesn't know about, or something they've told you they're unwilling to tolerate but you do it anyway, I personally would define that as cheating."

Whew! That's a hard line in the sand.

@ MightyMax ... your post hit right at the center of what I've been wondering about. For example, do we give wives more leeway than we do husbands? I wonder.

Re (from vinsanity0):
"If your partner does not consent you can A, B or C."

One of those options being breakup or divorce ...

So, if you want poly, but your spouse doesn't, do you divorce, or do you let your spouse decide to divorce you (when you go ahead with the poly)? Either way, not much depends on their consent ...
 
I do think there are examples where there is essentially the same issue - different details, but the same issue, and we (again, the general forum) have said that it is consent in one instance, and isn't consent in another.
 
I'm a hardass ;) Lying to a partner, or hiding something from them, or going behind their back to do it anyway after they tell you they aren't okay with it, I personally consider dishonesty. If those things are done in the context of having another partner, I consider it cheating. Other people see it other ways, and that's fine; I have a low tolerance for dishonesty of any kind in my life.

Vinsanity... according to Merriam-Webster, permission is defined as "the right or ability to do something that is given by someone who has the power to decide whether it will be allowed." Consent is defined as "to agree or allow to do something; to give permission for something to happen or be done." So on the surface, they do appear to be the same. But to me, the difference is that the definition of "permission" specifically mentions "someone who has the POWER to decide whether it will be allowed."

In other words... to me, at least, consent has nothing to do with who has power in a given situation, whereas permission requires that one person have power over the other. That's the difference, and that's why Hubby got annoyed about my asking *permission* from him but doesn't mind my asking for his *consent.* He gets irked about any indication that he has any type of power over me, because he doesn't want that power.
 
For example, do we give wives more leeway than we do husbands? I wonder.
Who is this royal "we" you speak of? There are many, many, MANY members here from all over the world, with lots of different opinions. Quite a number of members who answered questions here in 2009 and 2010 are no longer here. In six months, there will be lots more new folks adding their opinions, and the forum will have a whole different flavor. I wouldn't say there is one unified voice here.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed the gender bias, too. I think it's especially noticeable when there are young children at home and the partner wanting to open is male.

I'm also in the camp that consent is a requirement any time an agreement affecting both parties is changed. If you don't want a monogamous relationship, don't agree to one to begin with! If you change your mind, man up and get consent before beginning a relationship with someone else! In the case of DADT, consent is implicit in the agreement. Where I think it gets murky is when consent is given but then revoked after the ship's already sailed. In that case, I think a partner is well within his rights to refuse consent to close the relationship back up.

As far as offering dissolution of the romantic relationship as an option when the partners can't reach a compromise that is palatable to both parties, that's a no brainer, imo. Life is short and sacrificing both people just to preserve the marriage covenant makes no sense to me.
 
This royal "we" I speak of is those forum members who have been actively posting in the last six to twelve months.

---

So, I don't need consent from my spouse, I only need her to be aware of what I am going to do?

If my spouse says, "No, don't do it," but I do it anyway, and let my spouse know I did it: is that still cheating? even though I didn't do it behind my spouse's back.

If a spouse doesn't have any power over their spouse, does it matter whether they consent to anything?

---

Not trying to be a PITA, just digging for more insight on this topic.
 
Re (from MightyMax):
"I do think there are examples where there is essentially the same issue -- different details, but the same issue, and we have said that it is consent in one instance, and isn't consent in another."

See, that's what concerns me.

Re (from PinkPig):
"I've noticed the gender bias, too. I think it's especially noticeable when there are young children at home and the partner wanting to open is male."

Yeah, that definitely changes things ...

@ KC43 and nycindie ... see my previous post.
 
P.S.

My thanks to all who have responded so far. You've definitely shed light on what I feel is a really important subject.
 
Consent is something you can only give regarding your own self. I can tell my partner and the person he/she wants to hook up with it that I don't want that to happen, that I don't give my permission for it to happen within the bounds of our relationship, and that I'll break up with my partner if it does, but I can't revoke "consent" for them to do it, because it doesn't have to do with my own body. That's my understanding of the difference between consent and permission.

What IS cheating? If my primary partner sleeps with someone without my knowledge or agreement, and we had in fact agreed to be monogamous, that's cheating, obviously. But what if my partner agrees that we can open our relationship, I fall for someone else, eventually I come to consider that newer partner a primary partner too, and then my first partner says "actually, I revoke my 'consent' for this" and I say "no, I'm not breaking up with my newer primary partner", am I suddenly a cheater because my other partner is not ok with it?

What if I don't have primaries period? Do I have to allow each and every lover to veto any other lover, or else it's not poly because it's happening without agreement/consent/permission/what-have-you? I'd say not!

Imho, cheating means breaking the rules. If I say "I no longer agree to this particular rule [monogamy] and am no longer following it", as long as I'm honest, while I may have effectively terminated my preexisting relationship, I'm not cheating.
 
Thanks for your input AnnabelMore.

Re:
"I can't revoke 'consent' for them to do it, because it doesn't have to do with my own body."

So ... they automatically have my consent? I'm confused.

Re:
"What if my partner agrees that we can open our relationship, I fall for someone else, eventually I come to consider that newer partner a primary partner too, and then my first partner says 'Actually, I revoke my "consent" for this,' and I say, 'No, I'm not breaking up with my newer primary partner,' am I suddenly a cheater because my other partner is not okay with it?"

Exactly.

Re:
"Do I have to allow each and every lover to veto any other lover ..."

Indeed.

No I'm saying. Where's that fine line where consent is no longer ethically required?

Re:
"Cheating means breaking the rules."

Ah but how do I know what constitutes the rules?

Re:
"As long as I'm honest, while I may have effectively terminated my preexisting relationship, I'm not cheating."

Really! So, I absolutely don't need my spouse to say, "Yes, I agree to this?"
 
I'm a hardass ;) Lying to a partner, or hiding something from them, or going behind their back to do it anyway after they tell you they aren't okay with it, I personally consider dishonesty. If those things are done in the context of having another partner, I consider it cheating. Other people see it other ways, and that's fine; I have a low tolerance for dishonesty of any kind in my life.

Vinsanity... according to Merriam-Webster, permission is defined as "the right or ability to do something that is given by someone who has the power to decide whether it will be allowed." Consent is defined as "to agree or allow to do something; to give permission for something to happen or be done." So on the surface, they do appear to be the same. But to me, the difference is that the definition of "permission" specifically mentions "someone who has the POWER to decide whether it will be allowed."

In other words... to me, at least, consent has nothing to do with who has power in a given situation, whereas permission requires that one person have power over the other. That's the difference, and that's why Hubby got annoyed about my asking *permission* from him but doesn't mind my asking for his *consent.* He gets irked about any indication that he has any type of power over me, because he doesn't want that power.

I have to disagree. The person giving consent has a lot of power. I think maybe the word "permission" might be more closely associated with power, but giving one's consent is giving permission.
 
Imho, cheating means breaking the rules. If I say "I no longer agree to this particular rule [monogamy] and am no longer following it", as long as I'm honest, while I may have effectively terminated my preexisting relationship, I'm not cheating.

I agree cheating is breaking the rules. I don't agree that it is ethical to avoid breaking a rule simply by stating you are no longer going to follow it.
__________________
 
Consent and permission do seem inter-tangled if you break them down like this.
I had someone who doesn't know me well ask me what I would do if my wife cheated on me. I responded that i would give my consent before it would get to that, before it would get to cheating. The answer really seemed to throw him, he pressed me for a while about what I meant.
When i want to pursue a new friendship, I ask permission from my wife to go forward. I know the consent is there, but I get permission specifically for reinforcement. For me, although on the surface they are similar, consent seems general, permission is more specific.
 
Last edited:
The oft-quoted general definition of polyamory is the act or desire of having multiple loving relationships "with the full knowledge and consent of all those involved." We never hear it said, "with permission," which implies an imbalance of power. We also hear a lot about "informed consent." I have come to see consent as more of an agreement and acceptance, and something that is connected to each person having autonomy.

If I consent to being in a polyamorous relationship, I am not giving a partner permission to do something. Rather, I am saying, "yes, I am okay with this." I am consenting (agreeing, accepting) to be in a polyamorous arrangement. It is different! When people talk about asking their partners if they have permission to do something, I picture them standing in front of their partner like a child with their hand out, begging to be allowed to do something as if their partner has authority over them, and holds some power to grant them their wishes, so to speak.

Whereas, obtaining consent feels to me like you're not asking for something to be handed to you, but are asking if they are okay or think they might be okay with poly, and for them to be allied with you, as in "let's be in this together, let's go forward into this adventure together" or "let's see if we can both be okay with this." It isn't "May I please go fuck our next-door neighbor?"

So, I Googled around and found some interesting articles on the difference between consent and permission. Mostly in relation to medical studies or procedures, and in legal cases, there were numerous sites which mention obtaining both consent and permission, each with separate forms to sign - so clearly there is a distinction between the two words. I will post some excerpts below, from non-medical sources.

Following are some key points from a blog post titled You Can Take it Back: Consent as a Felt Sense :

"Instead of understanding consent as “giving someone permission to do a thing,” we can and should talk about it as “being okay with a thing happening.”

. . . if our concern is about behaving ethically and with integrity, rather than making sure we are not held accountable for coercive actions, then we should respect consent as an experience people have, not a commitment people make.

Consent does not equal permission; it is a felt sense.

. . . Conflating giving permission (to try something) with consenting (feeling okay about something) often leads to confusing situations where people feel traumatized or violated but tell themselves, “Well…I said yes, so I must’ve wanted it.”

. . . The consent-as-permission model is also attractive because it requires very little self-reflection. A permission binary—”they said yes” versus “they said no”—is more simply quantifiable than having to be conscientious about what people are actually experiencing and what responsibilities you might have in relation to that experience.

. . . We need to understand giving permission as a way of communicating about consent, not as consent itself. We also need to understand that giving (or not giving) permission is not the only legitimate way to communicate about consent.

. . . Understanding consent as something that is experienced, rather than as something that is “given,” addresses the problems caused by conflating permission with consent. Importantly, treating consent as a felt sense respects the agency of the person consenting; it enables them to consent to anything, and only things, that they feel okay about. This includes, ironically, situations that they feel okay not feeling okay about, yet without absolving non-consensual situations of their violative aspect.

This ability for layering, or meta-consent, means that it is possible to agentically consent to having your consent violated. This is the most important difference between the Consent as Felt Sense model and the two major current discourses about consent, both of which argue that it is impossible to consent to violation:

  • Radical feminists use a “false consciousness” model, which claims that if you appear to be choosing (i.e., contracting for) violation, you must not be authentically choosing. In other words, you have been brainwashed or are being threatened into giving permission.
  • In the sex-positive and BDSM scenes, a “performative violence” model is more common; it claims that if you appear to be choosing violation, it must not actually be violation. In other words, what might look like rape or violence is actually something else entirely, because you’ve given permission for it.
Both of these framings are wrong.

If I freely give you a signed and notarized piece of paper saying, “Do whatever you want to me,” that doesn’t mean I now magically can’t be raped. It might mean I can’t prosecute you for rape—but given the legal system’s track record, I probably couldn’t have done that anyway. It hopefully means I have a process for integrating rape into my experience in a way that makes it okay for me. But if you choose to take advantage of this carte blanche opportunity to rape me, what you’re doing is still rape.

The legalistic Consent-as-Permission model focuses on behavior, on the “doing” of sex acts. It addresses what a given person, in a given place, at a given time, with a given history can or cannot reasonably choose to allow to happen to them in a given situation. But it has nothing to say about how that person feels about the choice they made. It doesn’t even offer any guidance for answering questions like, “What if I don’t know what I want?” and “What if what I want, or wanted, changes over time?”

Legalistic approaches to consent are responsible for the cultural paralysis in addressing rape and other undesirable intimate violations. If we focused cultural resources on developing a compassionate discourse for understanding the ways that consent violations are gradated, that violations have degrees of impact informed by myriad factors, and that “consenting” is more about developing our own felt sense of an experience than strictly adhering to a set of cultural doctrines, we might finally be able to stop repeating these boring, immature, circular finger-pointing arguments we’ve been having since the “Sex Wars” in the 80’s."​


And this I copied from a summary of some court case I found online and for some reason cannot find it again:

"The word "consent" used as a noun means "compliance or approval of what is done or proposed by another" or agreement as to certain action or opinion. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary). The word "permission" means the act of permitting or formal consent. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary). But very often the words "consent" and "permission" are used inter-changeably. "Consent is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side (The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, reprint edition 1987). While "consent" applies some positive action, the word "permission" may in certain contexts suggest passivity. But in essence the word "permission" is used to denote the act signified by the word "allowed" which implies positive decided assent . . ."​


Finally, in a document written around 395 AD, a philosopher named Augustine wrote:
"We consent, when we approve and wish: but we permit even not willing, because of some greater turpitude to be eschewed."​
Hahaha, figure that one out!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top