Consent: What if it's Not Required?

[kdt26417]

So of,

• 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.

... the better answer is either, neither, it depends, and it's (much?) less important than the details of how we're treating each other. (I can live with that.)

@ KC43 ... your post makes sense and is consistent.

 

[AnnabelMore]

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.

I don't think that one is necessarily more ethical than the other. To me, it's the journey -- honesty, conversation, negotiation, attempts at compromise and reconciliation, and efforts to minimize damage done -- that make things in such a complex situation more or less ethical, not the final result of who leaves whom.

You may say that scenario #2 is less ethical, because you're putting the burden on the person who didn't cause the conflict in the first place, and that may well be true in some cases. But what if that person WANTS the burden... what if they find it insulting and condescending for you to say that you're going to leave them for their own good?

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.

There is, of course, a third possibility, the one you just articulated above -- "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."

This is, in fact, where a lot of mono/poly couples end up. They have all the right conversations, read books together, go to therapy, and in the end they still don't agree. But that by no means necessarily spells the death of the marriage in every case. Maybe they're just staying together for the kids or the house, or maybe it's because they're too hopelessly in love to split up even though the pro-poly partner absolutely cannot commit to not being poly. This sort of thing happens all the time.

The question is, is it REALLY poly in that case? I guess that's what this whole thread has been about. Certainly plenty of poly people won't date someone whose spouse is unhappy about the arrangement, either because it breaks their own ethical code or because they don't want the drama. Can something be somewhere in between cheating and polyamory?

The truth is, any poly arrangement (good or bad) can have a messy, traumatic past.

This is what it comes down to for me. Things are messy. Including poly, as much as we want it to be a clean and clear cut perfect alternative to cheating. If we say that something is only poly if it's ethical, we erase the experiences of people who are treated very poorly by their poly partners. It's like saying that something is only BDSM if it's consensual -- that sort of statement makes invisible all of the people who've been abused in BDSM contexts. I know that I'm trampling on a definition of poly that's stood for decades, but I honestly think that including "always ethical" in our definition is misleading at best, dangerously disingenuous and hurtful at worst.

 

[AnnabelMore]

So of,

• 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.

... the better answer is either, neither, it depends, and it's (much?) less important than the details of how we're treating each other. (I can live with that.)

@ KC43 ... your post makes sense and is consistent.

Haha, I started on my reply over an hour ago, got distracted, just finished it up, and then saw this. I took a lot more words to say the same thing.

 

[kdt26417]

Re (from AnnabelMore):

"There is, of course, a third possibility, the one you just articulated above -- '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.'"

Oh yeah ... ... and the wife says, "I don't like it, but I'll go along with it to save the marriage." Something to that effect.

Re:

"The question is, is it *really* poly in that case? I guess that's what this whole thread has been about."

Hmmm ... good point ... is it about what counts as consent? [shrug] IDK

Re:

"Can something be somewhere in between cheating and polyamory?"

Now that's an interesting question.

Re:

"Things are messy. Including poly, as much as we want it to be a clean and clear cut perfect alternative to cheating."

True ...

Good post Annabel.

 

[tenK]

I know that I'm trampling on a definition of poly that's stood for decades, but I honestly think that including "always ethical" in our definition is misleading at best, dangerously disingenuous and hurtful at worst.

Putting my devils advocate hat on for a moment, if the definition of poly is taken as having multiple loving relationships with the knowledge and consent of all parties, is it enough to still count as poly (as opposed to cheating) if we just stick with the 'with the knowledge' bit, and drop the 'and consent' bit? That would seem to capture the lived experience of those whose poly journeys have been foisted upon them quite accurately, whilst still leaving space for there to be a more ethical version of the basic polyamory concept for us to all aspire to.

 

[IndieSolo]

Is there such a thing as more ethical or less ethical? To me, ethical is ethical - something either is or it isn't.

However, the standards or definitions of what make an act ethical are subjective and culturally based.

 

[KC43]

tenK, I think part of the point of this thread has become establishing what "consent" actually is and means, and why it even matters if people have autonomy. And the difference between consent and permission, though we may have tabled that part at this point.

Not all unethical behavior constitutes cheating, in my opinion. If your partner knows what you're doing, you might not be cheating on them, but if they haven't agreed to you doing it, you're behaving in an unethical way because you know they're upset and unhappy, you know you're hurting them with your behavior, and you're doing it anyway. On the flip side, it could also be argued that your partner expecting you to only ever have sex with them if there's no or not enough sex in the relationship, or if you're "wired" polyamorous, and telling you not to have sex with anyone else even though they know you're upset, unhappy, and hurt, might also be unethical.

It's weird that Kevin posted this thread, by the way, because on another poly group a similar discussion began the same day, though the focus of that was more on cheating vs. unethical vs. forcing a partner to accept a situation they didn't want to accept than specifically on consent and its importance. I think I've said some of the same things in both discussions, actually...

 

[AutumnLeaves]

In any event, it's a fascinating discussion. And for me, it just drives home the need to talk to my partners about everything. Even the meaning of terms that I think are self-explanatory!

I think there are shades of ethical. Cheating on your spouse? Not ethical. Cheating on your spouse when you're stuck in a sexless marriage because you don't have the means to leave and if you were honest you'd be at risk of losing your job/kids/place to live? Probably not ethical by some measures, but I'd give you a pass.

 

[IndieSolo]

In any event, it's a fascinating discussion. And for me, it just drives home the need to talk to my partners about everything. Even the meaning of terms that I think are self-explanatory!

Oh yes! Indeed, even when it comes to most everyday, simple words and terms -- such as "love," "commitment," and even "relationship" or "dating" -- it's always a good idea to find out what the other person means or how they interpret what's already been said.

 

[kdt26417]

I always thought it was cheating to have sex with someone else without spousal consent -- even if said spouse knows what's going on. Just as much as a secret affair is cheating. (Not that I couldn't be convinced to change my mind, .)

 

[Ravenscroft]

It's a question that I haven't considered in many years.

Someone once asked me how I could give my wife permission to have sex with another guy. At the time, it totally baffled me. What I replied was something like, "She doesn't need my 'permission.' We have a few simple agreements, one of which is to keep each other 'in the loop' about what we're doing with others."

If there was consent involved, that would've been at the beginning of our relationship, not on a case-by-case basis.

A few times, if one of us felt that a relationship was having a deleterious effect, we would "check in." For example, she once asked me (with concern clearly on her face) "Are you sure you want to do this?" -- referring to my new involvement with a woman. I was about to make some casual, flip comment, when I froze, & all the fog of NRE fell away. The little niggling concerns I'd had, which had gotten deflected when I tried to bring them up, became really clear. I looked at my wife, & said, "No. You're right. I don't." I met with my new gf the next day & said that I couldn't continue.

To clarify, my wife didn't give me consent, or permission, or any suchlike to begin that involvement, & she certainly didn't withdraw it.

It's a good topic. I'm going to think about it awhile.

 

[starlight1]

I always thought it was cheating to have sex with someone else without spousal consent -- even if said spouse knows what's going on. Just as much as a secret affair is cheating. (Not that I couldn't be convinced to change my mind, .)

Does this consent have to be ongoing if an agreement is made upfront the spouse are ok with it? For me, I just had a talk with rocky where I had had a one night stand in USA while visiting. I had this strange urge to apologise, and he just goes, it's fine, we already agreed you can do what you like. But for me, I felt I didn't have consent then because I knew how he feels about one stands of himself, and because we had broken up and got back together, I then wondered...does the rules change?

And I always understood consent as something given in the moment. So...does this not apply to notifying partners as well? In my case I believe rocky knows it doesn't change how I feel about him, and he likes to know if I have a new partner I regularly have sex with rather than one night stands.

 

[AnnabelMore]

I just want to take a moment to acknowledge how hierarchy-centric this thread has been. Not to give anyone in particular a hard time, I just think it's interesting. Like, if we think that it's cheating to be intimate with someone else unless your spouse says it's ok, then is it cheating on the newer partner to be intimate with your spouse without the newer partner's agreement? Why or why not? For the record, I'm not taking a hard stance on this, I just think it's worth thinking through.

A related thought -- consent is only meaningful if it can be revoked. If we think that poly is only really poly if your primary partner consents to your secondary relationships, and consent is only meaningful if it can be revoked, that means we're endorsing unlimited veto power as the only real form of poly. So, if I'm married, and I start dating someone with my partner's approval, but then six months in he says "actually, nah", I have to immediately drop the person I'm dating. Or else I'm violating my partner's consent.

 

[vinsanity0]

Is there such a thing as more ethical or less ethical? To me, ethical is ethical - something either is or it isn't.

However, the standards or definitions of what make an act ethical are subjective and culturally based.

I think your last sentence answered your question - in the affirmative. What you may think is ethical, someone else may not. For example, one poster here thinks marriage is not ethical, but I doubt that is a common perception of marriage.

 

[vinsanity0]

Does this consent have to be ongoing if an agreement is made upfront the spouse are ok with it? For me, I just had a talk with rocky where I had had a one night stand in USA while visiting. I had this strange urge to apologise, and he just goes, it's fine, we already agreed you can do what you like. But for me, I felt I didn't have consent then because I knew how he feels about one stands of himself, and because we had broken up and got back together, I then wondered...does the rules change?

And I always understood consent as something given in the moment. So...does this not apply to notifying partners as well? In my case I believe rocky knows it doesn't change how I feel about him, and he likes to know if I have a new partner I regularly have sex with rather than one night stands.

I think it depends on what your agreement is. For me, the consent is in the beginning, not for each time I start seeing someone. We each consented to the other having multiple partners.

I just want to take a moment to acknowledge how hierarchy-centric this thread has been. Not to give anyone in particular a hard time, I just think it's interesting. Like, if we think that it's cheating to be intimate with someone else unless your spouse says it's ok, then is it cheating on the newer partner to be intimate with your spouse without the newer partner's agreement? Why or why not? For the record, I'm not taking a hard stance on this, I just think it's worth thinking through.

Well...the thread was originally started about a monogamous relationship in which one person cheated on their spouse. Married couples do tend to be a little hierarchical as well. Keeping in the vein of talking about married couples, I would think a new partner would be aware that a husband and wife are having sex before they agree to a relationship with one of them.

A related thought -- consent is only meaningful if it can be revoked. If we think that poly is only really poly if your primary partner consents to your secondary relationships, and consent is only meaningful if it can be revoked, that means we're endorsing unlimited veto power as the only real form of poly. So, if I'm married, and I start dating someone with my partner's approval, but then six months in he says "actually, nah", I have to immediately drop the person I'm dating. Or else I'm violating my partner's consent.

Firstly, we are only talking about one form of poly here. Not all policules involve married people, or even a primary/secondary model.

Secondly, I don't agree that consent is only meaningful if it can be revoked. Consent is meaningful in that it can be given. Consent can be revoked at any time though. That is where it starts getting tricky. Obviously, if your partner decides he doesn't want to continue, you both must come to some sort of agreement.

How does this sound? If one partner consents to the other having other partners, the "contract" changes. If that partner changes their mind, perhaps the other partner would need to consent to that.

 

[AnnabelMore]

How does this sound? If one partner consents to the other having other partners, the "contract" changes. If that partner changes their mind, perhaps the other partner would need to consent to that.

That sounds like a reasonable way to proceed, if one chooses to engage in a contractual style of relating.

The conversation in this thread has reinforced for me that I'm much better suited to the model of relationship anarchy, personally (no judgment meant towards anyone else).

 

[AutumnLeaves]

A related thought -- consent is only meaningful if it can be revoked. If we think that poly is only really poly if your primary partner consents to your secondary relationships, and consent is only meaningful if it can be revoked, that means we're endorsing unlimited veto power as the only real form of poly. So, if I'm married, and I start dating someone with my partner's approval, but then six months in he says "actually, nah", I have to immediately drop the person I'm dating. Or else I'm violating my partner's consent.

Or else you need to have a serious discussion with your partner about whether you want to withdraw your consent to staying in the relationship. Because breaking up with the person that you're seeing isn't the only choice. Honestly, I'd view that more as a red flag that your partner is feeling neglected or like needs aren't being met and you need to have a serious talk about them, instead of just an 'oh well I'll break it off.' But then, I don't agree with veto agreements philosophically, we don't have a veto agreement in my relationships, and I wouldn't agree to one.

And I don't think your partner's consent to see other people is the only consent you need. I think all of your partners need to be on board. If my girlfriend wasn't okay with me seeing someone new, because I value her happiness and comfort, I wouldn't start seeing someone new.

 

[ambivulous]

I just want to take a moment to acknowledge how hierarchy-centric this thread has been. Not to give anyone in particular a hard time, I just think it's interesting. Like, if we think that it's cheating to be intimate with someone else unless your spouse says it's ok, then is it cheating on the newer partner to be intimate with your spouse without the newer partner's agreement? Why or why not? For the record, I'm not taking a hard stance on this, I just think it's worth thinking through.

Interesting flip. I was thinking only back to our partner and their primary (not to how they feel about us and our primary). In other words: is it also cheating if you know your partner is not completely open with their spouse (kind of my situation). Generally I have only concerned myself with my relationship world, in my case about my wife and her ability to accept/consent, but not so concerned about my partner's situation. I guess we all need to trust that each person is doing enough to buttress their own primary relationships; but that could be a bad assumption which can lead to problems down the road. (I'll admit, being a bit new to all this, it's something I should probably discuss more with my GF.)

 

[KC43]

I don't ask Hubby to consent to me being intimate--which in itself is a problematic word, given that there are a number of different types of intimacy, of which sex is only one--with other partners. Over two years ago, Hubby gave his consent to me dating other men. He and I both assume that "dating" might include anything from going on a single date, to having strong emotional intimacy but nothing physical except hugging (as I currently have with Woody), to having a friendship that includes a hell of a lot of hot sex, to a full-fledged romantic relationship including all components thereof.

I don't ask for his consent to begin having sex with a new partner, because we've established already that if I have a new partner, I'm probably going to have sex with him at some point. By giving his initial consent in 2013 to me having the relationship I had with Guy, Hubby--according to him, not only to me--gave consent for me to engage in polyamory, regardless of who the other partners are, how many other partners I have at any given time, and whether or not I have sex with any other partners.

The only thing I would now ask for his consent to is my having *barrier-free* sex with another partner, since that directly impacts his sexual health and needs to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis because of the differing lifestyles of the men I get involved with. With S2, Hubby had no concerns about me going barrier-free, because we both knew that for the previous 16 years or so, S2 hadn't had sex with anyone other than his ex-wife. I was his first post-marriage sex partner. On the other hand, with Boots, Hubby asked that I not *ever* go barrier-free, because Boots was involved with Glow who was involved with at least one, possibly two, other men, who were involved with other partners, etc. Even though protection was used at every step except within married couples, Hubby wasn't comfortable with protection not happening between Boots and me. (Neither was Glow, for that matter, so it wouldn't have been a thing that might occur even if I'd continued seeing Boots.)

By the same token, I inform my other partners that I'm barrier-free with Hubby. (To which the usual response is "Duh, he's your husband, what's your point?") If they proceed with seeing me, and if we were to go barrier-free, they would by implication be consenting to having barrier-free sex with someone who's having barrier-free sex with someone else. When I start seeing someone new, I explain very clearly what my situation is, what my agreements are with Hubby, and that I'm cool with making agreements with the new partner as long as they don't contradict my agreements with Hubby. If that partner chooses to proceed with our connection, of whatever type, I consider that their consent to what I've told them.

 

[MightyMax]

I just want to take a moment to acknowledge how hierarchy-centric this thread has been. Not to give anyone in particular a hard time, I just think it's interesting. Like, if we think that it's cheating to be intimate with someone else unless your spouse says it's ok, then is it cheating on the newer partner to be intimate with your spouse without the newer partner's agreement? Why or why not? For the record, I'm not taking a hard stance on this, I just think it's worth thinking through.

A related thought -- consent is only meaningful if it can be revoked. If we think that poly is only really poly if your primary partner consents to your secondary relationships, and consent is only meaningful if it can be revoked, that means we're endorsing unlimited veto power as the only real form of poly. So, if I'm married, and I start dating someone with my partner's approval, but then six months in he says "actually, nah", I have to immediately drop the person I'm dating. Or else I'm violating my partner's consent.

Assuming you have been open an honest with the new person about your pre-existing commitments, I'd say that you can take them agreeing to a date and/or sex as consent for this non-monogamous arrangement. If you met someone who then changed their mind and didn't want polyamory, I'd say it's up to you to terminate that dysfunctional union if they aren't willing or able to do it.

As for a pre-existing partner who initially agrees to change the relationship model and then decides it's not for them, I'd say you're in the same situation. Once it's been established that the unhappy partner is not compatible with polyamory, simply continuing to be polyamorous with them and other people is not ethical and it is not consent.