Consent: What if it's Not Required?

I will not be with a smoker. If my husband decided to start smoking the choices are don't smoke or we split, It's not a power play at all.
 
Vinsanity, my phrasing may have been poor, but no, it isn't a power play. It's a statement of cause and effect. "Because I am unable to accept you having sex with someone else, if you choose to do so, I will choose to end the marriage because I will not be willing to live with someone who is having sex with someone else."

That isn't saying "You have to do what I say or else." It's saying "If you do this, I will do that." You're still giving the person the choice, but just as they informed you of their wish to choose to have sex with someone else, you're informing them of your wish to choose to end the marriage if they do have sex with someone else.

I'm sorry, but I just see that as two different ways to say the same thing. To me it's an ultimatum either way.

What you wrote up above that makes sense to me. Without that mutual love and respect, autonomy comes off as as a big "screw you" to the partner. I think that was what was missing in this discussion. If I told my wife I didn't consent to her seeing a certain someone and she did it anyway I would see that as a lack of respect for me and for our marriage. In fact, that did happen and it took a long time to repair that breaking of trust.
 
@ KC43 ... it sounds like you advise, in general, refraining from doing stuff that will hurt your partner. I feel better about that. But how do we know when there's an exception to that rule?

Re (from KC43):
"That isn't saying 'You have to do what I say or else.' It's saying 'If you do this, I will do that.'"

Yeah, see, to me that's kind of like splitting hairs. Not to be dense, I understand there's a difference. I just think it's a fine line.
 
The default state of relationships is exclusive monogamy. All of the societal expectations point to sexual and emotional fidelity. So if you have a preexisting relationship with someone where you have been monogamous, and where you've been living those unspoken agreements, I don't think you get to unilaterally decide to open that up.

So someone in that circumstance could seek consent by saying, 'I need to feel a deep emotional bond with more than one person, is polyamory as a relationship style going to work for you.' If the person in the relationship loves the other person, they aren't going to be saying that from a place of emotional manipulation. They are laying out their needs, and what they think the solution is for them to get those needs met. It's seeking consent.

And hey, even if the other person says no, they don't necessarily have to leave. It depends on what they think will give them more happiness. The first time I hinted at polyamory, it wasn't something I needed in my life but just something that I wanted, so when I brought it up the first time and Guitarist shot it down I stayed in the relationship anyway.

But someone might actually need what they say they need. In that case, 'if we can't agree, I'll leave' might also come up, but not in the sense of a punishment. I don't see it as an ultimatum. If you want to be monogamous and your partner wants to be polyamorous, you have a very serious disagreement about a really basic aspect of the relationship and ending the relationship might be best for everyone involved. It's no different in my mind than one person in the relationship wanting kids and the other not.

And it's completely different from saying 'I need to feel a deep emotional bond with more than one person, and so I unilaterally decided to open our marriage, deal with it, end of discussion.' That's cheating. If someone said that to you in a relationship, I'd seriously doubt whether they actually love you as much as they claim they do.

And it's also completely different from saying, 'I need to feel a deep emotional bond with more than one person, please please please please please let me.' That would be asking for permission. And it's essentially placing what should be your choice on the doorstep of someone else. You ultimately have the power to decide what relationship model you want to pursue. The question isn't whether the person you're with is going to begrudgingly let you while nursing secret hurt, it's whether you can both be happy with it.

I don't think it's a distinction without a difference. But I'm a lawyer, so splitting hairs is kind of what I do for a living.

As for the sub asking their Dom for permission to play with someone else, I agree that's permission. But the sub gave the Dom the power to make that choice for them, and it's part of their play. But I don't have to ask Guitarist for permission to sleep with other people. He doesn't choose who I sleep with, but I know that it will hurt him if I sleep with someone else without first letting him know, so I have agreed that we'll talk about it first. I make that choice because his emotional wellbeing is important to me, not because it's not a condition he placed on us doing polyamory. The distinction is where you're approaching it from.

As an aside, no, you can't refuse consent to a divorce in any state that I know of. Divorce is no-fault in most states, which means you don't even have to have a reason to get a divorce.

And as another aside, I think if you love someone, you're going to strive not to hurt them. You're going to try to reach agreements and places of consent, instead of laying out ultimatums and conditions and then just doing what you want anyway. If someone repeatedly hurts someone else, or repeatedly tries to manipulate them, I would really question their commitment to the relationship. It doesn't necessarily mean they're dishonest or bad, instead of just oblivious to what they actually want or are doing.

But if you lay your needs out to your partner, and they don't care about your needs, they only care about maintaining the status quo no matter how unhappy it makes you... why would you still want to be in that relationship? Because you've invested so much time into it? Just because you've invested a lot of time into something doesn't mean that you're going to get an amount of happiness in return. Or even that the ration of time-to-happiness won't change over time. Sometimes staying with a person is going to do more harm to both people involved than leaving would.

I don't think it's about 'do no harm.' I think it's about 'be honest with yourself and others, and do the least amount of harm that you can to attain the most amount of happiness.'
 
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.

Let me try to be clearer.

You and I, Kdt, don't know each other personally. So, if I'm sleeping with my bf, Pike, and you say "I don't consent to that!", uh, that's a bit of a nonsensical statement. You don't GET to consent or not consent to what I do with my body and my bf. You may not LIKE it, but I don't think consent is the right word to use. It's MY body and MY relationship with Pike, you don't have any right to consent or not consent, it has nothing to do with you, it's a non sequitur.

Now, what if you and I, Kdt, are friends? Even best friends? Same story. Your "consent" doesn't enter into what I do with Pike, and I don't find it to be the appropriate word to use. You may not approve, but you don't get to consent or not consent. If you deeply disapprove, you may choose to stop being my friend, but still -- not a consent issue.

Now, Kdt, what if we're lovers? If you're someone I met after Pike, and I just recently started casually sleeping with you, and suddenly you say "I don't consent to you sleeping with Pike", I would STILL say that you're phrasing it wrong. You can say that you no longer consent to being with me if I choose to still be with Pike. Fair enough, we can discuss that, and maybe I break up with Pike or maybe I break up with you. Or maybe I keep on sleeping with Pike and keep on sleeping with you, with your full knowledge. Am I violating your consent now? You could walk away at any time, it's your decision. It's an ethical gray area, imho. The most-ethical thing to do, if I have no intention of leaving Pike, would be to refuse to keep sleeping with you if you say you don't consent to me sleeping with Pike too, even if you're still in fact willing to sleep with me. But, if you say that, and then climb into my bed, and I proceed to be intimate with you, I certainly wouldn't consider it a "consent violation" in the way that we commonly understand that term (rape, abuse, molestation, etc.).

Now, what if you're my spouse, and we were monogamous previously, and only now have I met Pike and want to start sleeping with him? That scenario, and only that scenario, seems to be what you and most people are addressing when talking about consent in poly.

If I proceed to sleep with Pike without your knowledge in our Kdt-and-Anna-are-married scenario, that's absolutely a consent violation, imho. You have not consented to be in a relationship with someone who's sleeping with other people. You have not consented to put your heart or your sexual health in that sort of risky situation. If I sleep with Pike without telling you, and we've previously promised monogamy to each other, I am 100% breaking your consent.

But what if I inform you first? If I tell you I want to sleep with Pike, and you say that's cool with you, then no one is being harmed and no consent is being violated, of course. But what if, when I tell you I want to sleep with Pike, you say you can't stand for that? And I say "well, I intend to do it anyway, and I'm afraid that you can take this marriage or leave it." Is that breaking my wedding vows? Certainly. Is it harsh? Definitely. But is it a consent violation?

Again, I say no, it is not. Even if you're my married partner, and we've promised monogamy to each other, it's still my body, and still my relationship with Pike. I may be breaking my wedding vows, I may be doing something without your agreement or your happiness, I may be a jerk, but as long as I keep you fully informed, I am NOT breaking your "consent" imho, any more than I am in any of the other scenarios that I described above. Because the way I conceive of it, consent as to what happens to my body can only be given or taken away by me. Not even a wedding contract makes my body yours to control. Obviously, that's not how everyone views marriage -- those who take the more traditional view, that two people truly become one within a marriage, would obviously see it differently.

Does that all make sense?

All of this addresses my understanding of what consent is, in the sexual context -- something that can only apply to yourself. It does not address the thornier question of what constitutes a cheater. I'm a bit too worn out to get into it now, and I don't think it was the main thrust of what you were after, anyway.
 
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.
__________________

I agree with you, for the record, that the more ethical thing to do is to leave the situation entirely if you intend to no longer follow the preestablished rules and your partner is not ok with that. But things are not always that simple, and people may end up staying together for a variety of reasons. Imho, as long as they're honest with each other, it doesn't rise to the level of a consent violation. As to whether or not it's healthy, that's a whole different story...
 
Yes, but when someone consents to a monogamous relationship, that is what they are consenting to, 1v1. They are not consenting to the slightly higher chances of STIs that one takes when having multiple sexual aprtners, they are not consenting to being okay with their partner taking time away from their responsibilities to be with another sexual/romantic partner. That's where consent comes into play. I have not consented to taking those risks with my body and wellbeing. There are ways you can navigate this, by say, withdrawing all sexual activity so your sex with more than one person the rest is pretty hard to circumvent.
 
Yes, but when someone consents to a monogamous relationship, that is what they are consenting to, 1v1. They are not consenting to the slightly higher chances of STIs that one takes when having multiple sexual aprtners, they are not consenting to being okay with their partner taking time away from their responsibilities to be with another sexual/romantic partner. That's where consent comes into play. I have not consented to taking those risks with my body and wellbeing. There are ways you can navigate this, by say, withdrawing all sexual activity so your sex with more than one person the rest is pretty hard to circumvent.


True. But does consenting to a monogamous relationship (or consenting to anything once for that matter) mean you cannot withdraw or renegotiate that consent later? If you cannot withdraw consent at a later date, for any reason, it's not true consent in my opinion. Of course, me withdrawing my consent to be in a sexually exclusive relationship does not compel you to agree to consent to being a sexually non-exclusive relationship. That much seems obvious.

My take on all this is that my only obligation is to let the other person know that I am no longer happy to continue following our previous agreements, and to ask (not dictate) that we come to a new agreement that works for us both, or dissolve the relationship altogether to allow us to pursue our preferred relationship types with other people. At the end of the day, if our partner does not consent to new agreements it always comes down to what do we value more - our current relationship (with old agreements in place), or the ability to install new agreements in a new relationship? It's never going to be an easy decision unless both parties are in agreement about that in advance I think, and hardly anyone seems to actually have the discussion about how they might dissolve their relationship if they uncover an incompatibility like that. If people did, I think such situations would be far less traumatic.

As for whether that approach is functionally equivalent to an ultimatum, or if it's just expressing your own personal boundaries… well. In order for it to not have the feel of an ultimatum, I think both parties need to be equally empowered and equipped to handle a separation. In practical terms, I don't think that's ever been the case in any of my past relationships. Either I, or the other, has been more dependent or attached in some way. Knowing that, I now strive to make my current relationship as robust and healthy to this kind of thing as I can. I would be devastated if my partner left me, but I would be able to cope - financially as well as emotionally. We both would, and that actually gives me a greater feeling of security. I don't have to worry about either one of us choosing to continue our relationship for any other reason than we want to, and that's great. It also means I know I can bring difficult things to the discussion table, or ask to renegotiate our agreements without immediately triggering a relationship apocalypse, because my partner is a strong empowered individual who doesn't rely on me or our relationship for all of her security needs. That instantly makes the ethics that much simpler.
 
Going back to the ultimatum/power play thing...

I'm still having trouble explaining this the way I want to. To me, an ultimatum is an attempt to *control* the other person's behavior by threatening an action if they do what you don't want. What I'm trying to describe is not attempting to control. It's attempting to *inform* the other partner of all of the possible results of their decision, so that whatever they decide will be based on full awareness and you don't blindside them later on by saying "Okay, I'm leaving because you fucked her, goodbye" with no warning.

If I tell Hubby, "If you spend money from the household account on new books, that's going to mean we won't have enough for groceries, and I'm going to be angry and will probably move extra money into my separate account in the future to make sure the groceries are covered," is that an ultimatum? I don't see it as one. I see it as telling Hubby that the action he is considering is unacceptable to me, and that if he chooses to follow it anyway, there are actions I will choose to take as a direct result. I can't buy groceries if there isn't enough money. If he's the reason there isn't enough money, I will decide I need to remove his access to the grocery money to make sure there will be enough in the future. I'm not telling him he can't buy his books. I'm just making sure his decision is based on full awareness of the possible ramifications.

Same thing in the "If you see other people, I'll end the marriage" example. (I'll use me and Hubby again, even though he has the right to choose to see other people and chooses *not* to.) If Hubby says he wants to take on a girlfriend and I say, "If you take on a girlfriend, I won't be able to tolerate knowing you're fucking someone else. I don't believe that's something married people should do, and I'm not willing to compromise my beliefs. Therefore, if you choose to take on a girlfriend, I will probably end the marriage", I'm not telling him he can't take on a girlfriend. I'm just making sure his decision is based on full awareness of all the possible ramifications.

If compromise is possible, that's the ideal. If Hubby can buy one book instead of five, I might be able to live with that and still buy the groceries. If Hubby is willing not to have sex with his girlfriend, at least not without revisiting the discussion with me to see whether my views have changed, I might be able to live with him having a girlfriend and not end the marriage.

But if there's no compromise available, each partner has to make their own decision. By your logic, the partner who says "I'm going to see other people" is also issuing an ultimatum... but they aren't. They're informing their partner of a possible course of action, and saying "If you do that, I will do this," is also informing of a possible course of action.
 
Is it cheating if the wife informs her husband that she will no longer remain monogamous but he doesn't consent?

Yes, it's cheating if she pursues someone else. Her choice is then to cheat or divorce him so that it's not cheating. She previously made a promise to him, and he is not releasing her from the promise. She can only release herself by ending the marriage.
 
True. But does consenting to a monogamous relationship (or consenting to anything once for that matter) mean you cannot withdraw or renegotiate that consent later? If you cannot withdraw consent at a later date, for any reason, it's not true consent in my opinion. Of course, me withdrawing my consent to be in a sexually exclusive relationship does not compel you to agree to consent to being a sexually non-exclusive relationship. That much seems obvious.

THIS, exactly. Thank you. As long as everyone is being honest and is free to make their own choices, uncoerced, you may be breaking a promise if you decide you need to be poly (could be an implicit or an explicit promise, could be the promise to be together monogamously forever, or to only make decisions affecting the relationship that both parties agree with, etc.), but you are not breaking your partner's consent, because consent can always be freely withdrawn, and that means that youyou, the newly poly partner, get to withdraw it too!
 
Yes, it's cheating if she pursues someone else. Her choice is then to cheat or divorce him so that it's not cheating. She previously made a promise to him, and he is not releasing her from the promise. She can only release herself by ending the marriage.

I think I agree with this view of what constitutes cheating on this situation.
 
So Kevin, was your view that ethical non-monogamy required the consent of both members of a married couple and if one member did not consent then the other member was bound to their vows to forsake all others and clevae only to each other until death do part?

That view, it seems to me, was based on people understanding that one can only be released from promises and vows by the person to whom the promise was made. People still have some grasp of this in that if you promise someone that you will do something it is terribly uncool to just skip it without asking the person if it is OK and apologizing for your inability to do as you said.

Many married people still make the traditional vows to each other but, having little experience with solemn vows, regard them somewhat as a formality, sort of like giving an engagement ring, a nice old fashioned symbolic gesture.

Presently Western society is not much set up for binding vows, especially ones with no sunset clause. Marriage is seen as an emotional contract rather than an economic one, a friendship with extra special benefits. Friendships fail or fade and while that is considered sad it is not wrong or unexpected. The legal benefits of the marriage contract can be ended like other legal contracts through court action. I suspect this is part of why the marriage rate is down in Western countries, people do not want their friendships/romances to be legally binding in a way that incurs penalties for abrogating the contract when emotions change.

Ray feels that marriage will come to be a limited contract, say for 7 years, with the option of renewal at that time. That is if society keeps giving benefits for those in legally binding relationships. Otherwise people may or may not feel it is worth the difficulties involved.

Leetah
 
KC, I just wanted to say that I love your last comment, I think it was very clear and helpful.
 
Ooh, I said something helpful that made sense?? On day 4 of sleeping like crap and fighting strep throat, having typed that with no coffee, I'm excited!

Thanks :D

On the subject of who can release someone else from a promise, an example:

When S2 asked if we could "downgrade" our relationship in June, I agreed because I had made two promises to him that I could only keep if I stayed in the situation.

I don't break promises. Ever. The only way I'll break a promise is if I die before I'm able to keep it. I'm very careful about making promises because of that. The words "I promise" seldom come out of my mouth, and I will often qualify something I agree to with "I'm not promising."

About a month into the summer of hell, S2 said he could see how much the situation was hurting me and asked why I was accepting it. I said it was because of the promises I'd made. He looked me in the eye and said, "I can't stand to see you hurting this much. I'm angry with myself about this, and I don't want you to keep putting yourself through this if it causes you this much pain. You do not have to keep those promises. I'm releasing you from them."

Nope. It does not work that way with me. I made the promise. I am the only one who gets to choose whether I break it. In that case, yeah, it would have been a lot easier on me to accept his "release" and get out of a situation that had me in tears more days than not and caused me to question my judgment and what I'd done wrong to make the situation happen. (I hadn't done a bloody thing, I'm just really good at blaming myself.) It also would have been a lot easier on *him*, because then he wouldn't have been the "bad guy" who actually ended the relationship. Which, to be honest, was another reason I refused to break the promises; I refused to give him an easy way out when he was the one who wanted out in the first place.

Keeping those promises was one of the hardest, and arguably one of the most emotionally damaging, things I've ever done... but not keeping them because *he* said I didn't have to would have been wrong. Because *he* didn't have the right to break the promises *I* made.
 
So, in the case of me wanting to open our marriage when my wife doesn't want to open it, which of the following is the more ethical?

  • I divorce my wife. Then I go and have sex with other people.
  • I tell my wife that I'm going to have sex with other people, and that my wife can decide whether she wants to divorce me.
Re (from Leetah):
"So Kevin, was your view that ethical nonmonogamy required the consent of both members of a married couple and if one member did not consent then the other member was bound to their vows to forsake all others and cleave only to each other until death do part?"

Hmmm. Good question.

Re:
"That view, it seems to me, was based on people understanding that one can only be released from promises and vows by the person to whom the promise was made."

Pretty much. D'oh!

I suppose I didn't properly think through what happens when one spouse wants poly, but the other spouse wants no poly. If I had been confronted with that theoretical question before starting this thread, perhaps I would have said that the marital covenant is not all-powerful, but it's powerful enough to forbid the pro-poly spouse from acting on their desire to be poly at least until a year of negotiations have taken place, preferably with marriage counseling. Though I do think the counselor should be poly-friendly.

But if no agreeable compromise can be come to before that year is up, I guess you do end up with a divorce, or with a pro-poly spouse who chooses not act on his/her desires, in order to save the marriage. That part is up to the pro-poly spouse.

Of course, if either spouse is acting like a jerk in general, that can change a number of details.

But there was a time, I'm not sure how long ago, when I assumed that the pro-poly spouse in question would automatically remain forever faithful to the monogamous covenant. Not that I'm happy with that idea in retrospect. But I always had this soothing ideal that poly arrangements (the good ones at least) all have a happy backstory. The truth us, any poly arrangement (good or bad) can have a messy, traumatic past.

@ KC43 ... all of your posts here have been good. I feel somewhat apologetic for giving you a bad time about them. I hope your sleep and health soon improve.

You said you keep all your promises no matter what. I'm curious, does that mean that if your marital vows had included a "forsaking all others til death do us part" clause, that you absolutely wouldn't have tried poly ever, even if your husband consented? The question's a bit off-topic and you don't have to answer, but I was wondering.

Good posts everyone. I appreciate your time and attention here, as I think it's a really important topic.
 
Here's the thing that's been nagging me: without context, we can't possibly have the "right" answer to the following:

So, in the case of me wanting to open our marriage when my wife doesn't want to open it, which of the following is the more ethical?

  • I divorce my wife. Then I go and have sex with other people.
  • I tell my wife that I'm going to have sex with other people, and that my wife can decide whether she wants to divorce me.

If there has been compassion on both sides while you try to work through this, maybe *neither* is the proper answer. Maybe it's "struggle through multiple ways of trying to stay together because we love each other before we mutually agree on divorce."

If you've been understanding and trying to work with your wife's reluctance, but she doesn't give two shits about how you feel, then maybe either answer is just as ethical (although maybe the first one would help salvage your self-respect).

If you're stomping all over your wife's feelings or steamrolling her to death while *she* tries to figure out how to get this to work for herself, then maybe divorcing her is the most ethical thing to do in order to just put her out of her misery already. But if you're stomping all over her feelings, maybe you're not really in the best frame of mind to be figuring out what's ethical in the first place.

It seems to me that how you interact with each other is really the ethical discriminator. What you do is simply the result.
 
So, in the case of me wanting to open our marriage when my wife doesn't want to open it, which of the following is the more ethical?

  • I divorce my wife. Then I go and have sex with other people.
  • I tell my wife that I'm going to have sex with other people, and that my wife can decide whether she wants to divorce me.
And the least ethical is just having sex without any sort of explanation or dissolution of the marriage. I think these options are too simplistic, most married people have some tolerance for cheating and to be a little flexible for something (marriage) they think is important. I think your suggestion for discussion, therapy, and time to process the marital change is good:

I suppose I didn't properly think through what happens when one spouse wants poly, but the other spouse wants no poly. If I had been confronted with that theoretical question before starting this thread, perhaps I would have said that the marital covenant is not all-powerful, but it's powerful enough to forbid the pro-poly spouse from acting on their desire to be poly at least until a year of negotiations have taken place, preferably with marriage counseling.

I agree in principle, though I think a year is a maximum and depends on what has precipitated the pro-poly person to explore things. Until recently I was feeling like my wife would foot-drag or delay until I gave up or pushed the issue to a divorce. Thankfully, amazingly - happily! - she has come to accept it; in part because we did do therapy, we talked a lot, I didn't push without considering her feelings, and allowed some time for us to try and connect without my dating. I actually feel closer to my wife now (I am not sure she feels the same way, but I think that's more a task for her than me, at this point.)
 
Thanks, Kevin, and no need to apologize. I've been in a debating/arguing mood anyway, so this discussion has actually been fun given that it's been a very civil one.

I would never have taken wedding vows that included "forsaking all others." My ex-husband and I were married by a notary public, and I don't even remember what vows we had, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't part of them. Hubby and I used a justice of the peace who, working with us, put together a set of nautically-themed vows (because Hubby's a professional boat captain) that at our request did NOT include "forsaking all others", "obey", or "until death do us part." I know your question says "if", but there is no if about that; I wouldn't have allowed that phrase to be part of any vows I took.
 
Back
Top