Consent: What if it's Not Required?

[Emm]

Really! So, I absolutely don't need my spouse to say, "Yes, I agree to this?"

Consent isn't necessary if the first relationship has been dissolved prior to the second relationship beginning. If the 2nd relationship started while the 1st was active and while the 1st partner witheld consent then it would, IMO, be cheating - defined in this case as deliberately choosing to do something explicitly forbidden by the current relationship agreements.

Choosing to remove one's self from a relationship and then entering another is not cheating and does not require consent from members of the relationship that no longer exists.

Edit: I think where you're getting stuck is in the difference between failing to gain consent from a current partner and doing what you want anyway, and failing to gain consent from a current partner and ending the relationship you have with them because it's clear that your disagreement in that area is a fundamental incompatibility.

 

[MightyMax]

If your partner vetos your new partner, you have the choice to say "I understand that you are taking back your consent for polyamory. This does not coincide with what I need from my relationships, so we must part ways to allow us both to be happy eventually." Then, you don't need to have their consent, permission or anything else. If you choose to remain with the partner who has revoked their consent, then no, it is not ethical for you to pursue or continue the other relationship(s).

 

[Leetah]

As someone recently pointed out (astutely I thought) the view of polyamory generally subscribed to here, with a great deal of variation,can be described as placing greater value on the autonomy of a partner than on their security whereas the traditional monogamous model places greater value on security.

My impression has been that when someone comes here saying that they or their Significant Other wants to go from an agreed upon monogamous relationship to a polyamorous one, they are told that they can try to honestly and gently negotiate a new agreement with the other person and if negoitation fails they have the right to say they do not consent to the offered agreement, thus ending the relationship. So to begin living polyamourously, without either obtaining a new agreement or ending the current relationship is unethical, even if done with notification, because you have not allowed the other person to exercise their right as an autonomous person, to either agree to polyamory in some form, or to void the agreement and end the relationship.

The trouble comes in when the couple's agreement leaned strongly on the security of "'til death do us part" and they have arranged their lives based on that security. Telling a 40 something year old that they should not have placed such trust in the promises of their Significant Other and instead of having a division of labor and responsibilities they should have autonomously seen to their own lives, is not quite fair even in urban, secular, Western society. We do not make many solemn vows in this modern day so it is hard to know what to do when having taken traditional wedding vows, a person finds they cannot happily keep their word.

That is where your brother's situation crashes into the autonomy of polyamory. Two valid relationship styles that can be mutually exclusive once entered upon. Especially for women who more often than not are the ones who have given up economic autonomy in the division of labor that promised security allows. This is why men wanting to open up their marriages are held more accountable as their partner often has not the economic means to comfortably void the agreement and walk away if it is unacceptable.

It is very late so I hope that was not too rambling and actually made a point.

Leetah

 

[KC43]

nycyndie, thanks for posting that! That's what I was trying to get at about the difference I (and Hubby) perceive between consent and permission.

I give my kids permission. I give Hubby consent. I have power/authority over my kids, and can allow or forbid them to do something. I have no power/authority over Hubby, and cannot allow or forbid him, I can only state my acceptance of or opposition to his chosen course of action. The only similarity is that my kids and Hubby have the same ability to choose to disregard what I say, and if they make that choice, they might face consequences. But my kids' consequences would be getting grounded or lectured, or losing a privilege, whereas Hubby's would be having me angry with him, arguing, or if it was serious enough, losing *me*. Autonomy and freedom of choice doesn't free anyone from the consequences of their actions.

Kevin, I'm not sure what I'm looking for in the post you mention... maybe my brain is fogged up because I'm sick, but would you clarify, please? (Several posts ago, you said to see your previous post.)

 

[kdt26417]

Thanks for the new input you guys.

I guess I'm in vinsanity0's camp for the moment. Consent loses all meaning if it has no power. What does it mean when one spouse says, "No, I do not consent to that." Does it mean, "Well okay then, I won't do it," or does it mean, "Tut tut, I'm going to do it anyway, because you have no power over me." I'm disappointed if that's how it is; so much of poly being okay depended on consent ... and then, to find out the absence of consent has no teeth ...

Re (from vinsanity0):

"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 don't even get how "no longer going to follow the rule" differs from "breaking the rule." Unless both (+) parties agree to change the rule, but again, that's *both* parties and it calls for mutual consent.

Re (from drgnfly):

"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."

Interesting solution. Although it only works if you automatically consent to everything. I have the power to say, "No," as long as I never use that power? I never understood consent to be subject to that rule.

The big question here is, what if I want to take on a poly partner, and my spouse is *not* okay with that? Do we go to counseling so my spouse can learn to be okay with it? Do I compromise by giving my spouse (x) amount of time to learn to be okay with it? What happens when (x) amount of time has passed and my spouse still isn't okay with it? Do we just start discussing divorce? All of this sounds to me like, "I don't *really* care whether you're okay with this, but I invite you to be okay with it anyway."

And I'm not necessarily comfortable with, "You can't do it unless/until your partner is okay with it," either. I mean, by "it" I don't mean something like rape, I mean something like poly.

Re (from Emm):

"I think where you're getting stuck is in the difference between failing to gain consent from a current partner and doing what you want anyway, and failing to gain consent from a current partner and ending the relationship you have with them because it's clear that your disagreement in that area is a fundamental incompatibility."

For this I picture the following scenario. I ask my wife, "Would you be okay with it if we opened our relationship?" My wife says, "No, I wouldn't." I say, "Well that's unfortunate because it means we're fundamentally incompatible. I think we need to talk about divorce." So, what has essentially happened is I have followed an ultimatum: "Consent to an open relationship or I'll divorce you." Once the divorce is complete, I can start a new relationship with someone who does consent. Technically, I haven't violated the principle of consent, but I feel like I have snuck through a loophole.

Re (from KC43):

"I have no power/authority over Hubby, and cannot allow or forbid him, I can only state my acceptance of or opposition to his chosen course of action."

So ... poly does not require consent?

Re:

"Kevin, I'm not sure what I'm looking for in the post you mention ... maybe my brain is fogged up because I'm sick, but would you clarify, please? (Several posts ago, you said to see your previous post.)"

Post #9 is the one I meant. Re:

"Consent has nothing to do with who has power in a given situation, whereas permission requires that one person have power over the other."

Among other things my response was, "If a spouse doesn't have any power over their spouse, does it matter whether they consent to anything?"

 

[AutumnLeaves]

These are my thoughts on consent, permission, boundaries, and cheating.

Consent: I'm comfortable with you dating others.
Boundary: I'm not comfortable with you sleeping with someone else.
Permission: You may date others only if I approve of them.
Cheating: I agreed that I'd only date others, but now I slept with someone else. Or I said "date" when I meant "sleep with" so that my partner would say yes under false pretenses.

Consent is a quality. It either exists or it doesn't. It isn't something you are given or that is taken away. But often you can only know whether it exists by asking if it's there.

And consent always has to be informed. You can only know if consent exists after an open and honest dialogue. If the dialogue isn't open and honest, at the end there isn't consent.

I don't view stating your needs and establishing boundaries as equivalent to being emotionally manipulative. If you have needs, it's on you to say what they are. It isn't "letting" someone do something unless they give you something in return. That's permission. It can be given but it can also be conditioned or taken away.

To me, permission is a manipulation concept. No one ever has the right to control the actions of another capable adult, and trying to do so through coercion is wrong. Conditions are another manipulation concept, but boundaries are not.

If you're laying a boundary, the reason is your own physical, mental, or emotional health. You've consented to some conduct but not others. The focus is yourself. And if someone crosses your boundaries, YOU choose whether and how to enforce them.

If you're placing conditions, you're trying to manipulate someone else's actions. You've given permission for some actions, but only on your terms. The focus is your partner's conduct. You think that you're entitled to control it somehow. It's different.

I'm a very strong believer in personal responsibility. Anyone who says that their partner made them do something isn't taking personal responsibility for their choices. You chose to do what they want because you viewed it as less costly than not doing so.

As far as consent to this or that, all you can do is say what conduct you are and aren't okay with. It's on the other person to decide whether to agree and stay in the relationship, disagree and end it, or agree from a place of dishonesty and cheat. But you don't have any more right to decide their conduct for them than they have to decide what your boundaries are for you.

So yes, if you need poly to be happy, say that. Make sure consent exists. And if she says she can't deal with you being poly (her boundary is monogamy), then it's on you to decide to agree and stay in the relationship, not agree and end it, or cheat. And if you say that you need poly to be happy and she says okay, but it turns out she's not okay with poly after all, then it's on her to also bring that up. And then you'll have a hard decision to make about which is more important to you, poly or your existing relationship, but it IS a choice. Ending a relationship because your needs aren't compatible doesn't make anyone in the relationship a bad person.

I think that's perfectly consistent. Be honest with others and with yourself so that everyone consents, don't try to manipulate the actions of others (but do let them make informed choices), and own your choices.

 

[KC43]

Kevin, my point is that *consent* is the "accepting or opposing his course of action" part. When I give my *consent*, I'm saying "Yes, I'm okay with that"... not "Yes, you're allowed to do that."

No one has said consent doesn't have any power. What we're saying is that permission implies that one person has power OVER the other. In other words, that one person can control and refuse the actions of the other, while the other cannot do the same. It implies a power *imbalance*. Consent doesn't imply that one person has power OVER the other person, it implies that one person has the *right* to express their approval or disapproval of the other's actions. It implies a *balance* of power between the two people involved.

Hubby and I have EQUAL power in our marriage. Therefore neither of us has power over the other. Therefore, we talk in terms of consent, not permission.

And no, I don't believe a spouse should have power OVER the other. That isn't marriage. That's slavery and/or abuse. Spouses should have equal power, unless something else has been negotiated and agreed on--and negotiating and agreeing on a power imbalance still inherently includes, at one point at least, an equal balance of power.

 

[kdt26417]

Hmmm, equal balance of power. Maybe I'm just confused about how that looks when there's a conflict of interest. "But I don't want to open the relationship." "But I don't want to break up." "Well too bad, we're going to break up anyway." So confusing ...

 

[GalaGirl]

I see people trip up on info management, resource management, and conflict resolution management when talking about Opening. They cover sex health stuff ok enough but then trip up on those.

Maybe I'm just confused about how that looks when there's a conflict of interest. "But I don't want to open the relationship." "But I don't want to break up." "Well too bad, we're going to break up anyway." So confusing ...

Me? I think it has to be a "2 yes" system or else it is not a go.

Person A | Person B

Yes + Yes = Go.

no + yes = not 2 yes. NO go.

yes + no = not 2 yes. NO go.

no + no = not 2 yes. NO go.


If this is an issue that they cannot resolve and it is a fundamental incompatibility? Then yeah. The people involved have to answer to their higher want when they cannot have both wants.

• Do I want the freedom to go there without having to consider other people more?
• Or do I want to be with this person more?

I think one cannot make unilateral decisions for the couple. One cannot even "give permission" -- one's partner is not one's child. They are an adult person.

• consent = I give my willingness for ME to participate in something.
  
• permission -- I give my authorization for YOU to go do something because I have power over you.

And while that is ok in a (Parent & child) dynamic where the child wants to do something, that does not work in an (equal adult partners) dynamic.

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

You are not asking for permission from your wife for you to go have sex with someone. You are in charge of your body. She is not.

You are asking your wife for her consent and willingness to participate in an Open Marriage. Her consent and willingness to still be there when you get back from being with other lovers.

If you go have sex with a new partner when the marriage is Closed? That's just cheating.

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.

Yes. If the marriage is Closed, and she says not to go fucking and you go fuck anyway? And then tell her you did that? The marriage is not Open at that point. It was Closed. It is still Closed. Opening has to be a "2yes" thing.

You broke agreements. Just cheating in front of her face rather than behind her back. Not kind treatment.

• Wife: I don't want to Open. No. Don't go do it.
  
• Husband goes to do it and comes back.
  
• Husband: Well, wife, I did it. I'm honest that I did it. Yay me!

Well, yeah. Points for being honest about it after. But the marriage was not Open at this point so minus points for cheating. "Points for honesty" does not make up for the major ding! Though I have seen some people try to act like it should.

I think it is better say you intend to go there and are making them aware first. BEFORE doing it. THEN they have a chance to stay "Wait. I'm getting off the bus first. You go on and drive the bus where you please, but I want to get off first. I don't want to take that journey."

That might be hard to hear when you want both. But taking your bus passengers hostage and driving off with them is not kind.

"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?"

In this situation the marriage was Open. The partner has since change their mind about participating in Open. If they withdraw their consent, they are allowed to do that. They want to get off the bus. That is fine. The bus can stop to let them off. But that doesn't mean all the other passengers get off with them.

The spouse that wants to stay on the bus? Can say so. They are not cheating on agreements. These partners now have to decide how to proceed from there, but there's no cheating.

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

To me, yes. Because I don't want to live with someone who behaves like an asshat toward me. Or tries emotional hostage taking.

I am not my spouse's warden, but I live here, we have a life together, he is not a footloose single. What he does can and does affect me when our life is this entangled. If he wants to remain in right relationship with me, he would talk to be first and make me aware. Not be telling me after the fact. Not be zooming off somewhere taking me along for a ride I don't want. I would not do it to him, and I don't want it done to me.

Our agreement for when there is conflict of interest is to wait for heads to cool off, reassess, and if it is not a 2 yes? We agree to disband. With regrets, but disband. Keep it clean.

Could a visual aid help you with consent, Kevin?

http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/01/brill...xual-consent-means-in-everyday-terms-5274497/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

Galagirl

 

[vinsanity0]

Kevin, I thik we may be the only two who see it this way. I think the others are merely cherry picking definitions in order to give these words new meanings.

My thoughts come from my experiences in BDSM. A sub or slave gives consent. That is viewed as permission. The sub has power and they elect to transfer that power to the Dom. Boundaries are agreed upon beforehand.

How does this translate to poly? When Cat and I opened our marriage we each consented to the other seeing other people. We gave each other permission to do this. We did have some rules (boundaries) in place at the beginning, but those didn't work for either of us.

I was married at a young age. I'll call her Kay. Kay cheated on me. I would have been fine if she has come to me wanting to open our marriage. I had turned down the advances of many women in the seven years we were together. She chose to ignore our agreement. There was no consent on my part. She was wrong to do that. Our agreement did not permit her to have sex with someone else.

I do see how people can confuse the two terms. My current sub is collared to a Master (one of my metamours). One of the rules in their dynamic is she must ask his "permission" before having sex with someone else. Consent to have sex is already implied, they are poly after all. In this case it's more about their power exchange, not approval. On the surface it would appear to fit in with what the others are saying, but it doesn't.

I hope at least some of this made sense.

 

[ambivulous]

Kevin ... thanks for posting this topic. It's something I've struggled with in my efforts to open my marriage.

I've been honest and open with my wife (L) about my wanting to date, that I have dated, and that I'd like to be sexual with women I form a connection with. I've been beating my head against a wall for several months trying to get her to give me "permission" for all this.

My GF has teased me a bit that I am trying to get some kind of "permission slip"; her position with her husband has been that she will tell him anything he wants, but she's not going to ask for permission because for him to grant that permission explicitly violates his (monogamous) sense of an ethical marriage. Plus, he can't control her actions: she is a smart, independent, responsible person he has no power to control her, all he really can do is express his feelings, negotiate, talk ... and ultimately divorce her if he really can't deal with that. He has done little of that work, which is an implicit agreement on his terms to grant her consent to date and develop relationships.

I've gone the negotiation route, big time. And, L has been both accommodating and stretched out of her comfort zone through the process of my exploring polyamory. I've always prided myself on being honest, sometimes brutally so, as the best policy. And, I'm kind of a literal guy, so it's taken me a while to discover/practice the difference between being honest and sharing too much. That, some people, like my GF's husband, and to a lesser extent L, just don't want to know some details, even if they generally know what's going on.

For example, I was encouraged by my therapist to tell L that I had kissed my GF a couple months ago (because explicit permission hadn't been granted). So I did ... and it kind of hurt L. She sort of suspected such a thing had happened, but she didn't really want to know, so that's why she didn't ask. So in telling L about the kiss, though it made me feel more honest, I exceeded her ability to accept specific details about my polyamory. Incidentally, she knew I was going on a date and was ok with that generic information - if I had asked permission to kiss on my date, at that stage, it would not have been granted (and by the way, we don't always know what will happen on a date).

I think my GF said something to me which I do think is relevant and is hard for hard-line poly people to accept: when a marriage is opened on a monogamist, that person has the right to a certain level of "don't ask / don't tell". This is a bit tricky to navigate ... a romantic embrace, a kiss, a love poem, or sex may all be ok - or not - depending on the person. That rule isn't easy to apply. But, I've now received, after months of talking with L and a lot of hard discussions, consent to my dating (and more), but that she doesn't really want to know details (yet - maybe not ever).

 

[FallenAngelina]

Especially for women who more often than not are the ones who have given up economic autonomy in the division of labor that promised security allows. This is why men wanting to open up their marriages are held more accountable as their partner often has not the economic means to comfortably void the agreement and walk away if it is unacceptable.

This is astute, Leetah, and explains why we (the collective Forum We) go easy on the wives who want to embrace poly and are more apt to give husbands the , especially when little dependents are in the home.

 

[vinsanity0]

Kevin ... thanks for posting this topic. It's something I've struggled with in my efforts to open my marriage.

I've been honest and open with my wife (L) about my wanting to date, that I have dated, and that I'd like to be sexual with women I form a connection with. I've been beating my head against a wall for several months trying to get her to give me "permission" for all this.

My GF has teased me a bit that I am trying to get some kind of "permission slip"; her position with her husband has been that she will tell him anything he wants, but she's not going to ask for permission because for him to grant that permission explicitly violates his (monogamous) sense of an ethical marriage. Plus, he can't control her actions: she is a smart, independent, responsible person he has no power to control her, all he really can do is express his feelings, negotiate, talk ... and ultimately divorce her if he really can't deal with that. He has done little of that work, which is an implicit agreement on his terms to grant her consent to date and develop relationships.

I've gone the negotiation route, big time. And, L has been both accommodating and stretched out of her comfort zone through the process of my exploring polyamory. I've always prided myself on being honest, sometimes brutally so, as the best policy. And, I'm kind of a literal guy, so it's taken me a while to discover/practice the difference between being honest and sharing too much. That, some people, like my GF's husband, and to a lesser extent L, just don't want to know some details, even if they generally know what's going on.

For example, I was encouraged by my therapist to tell L that I had kissed my GF a couple months ago (because explicit permission hadn't been granted). So I did ... and it kind of hurt L. She sort of suspected such a thing had happened, but she didn't really want to know, so that's why she didn't ask. So in telling L about the kiss, though it made me feel more honest, I exceeded her ability to accept specific details about my polyamory. Incidentally, she knew I was going on a date and was ok with that generic information - if I had asked permission to kiss on my date, at that stage, it would not have been granted (and by the way, we don't always know what will happen on a date).

I think my GF said something to me which I do think is relevant and is hard for hard-line poly people to accept: when a marriage is opened on a monogamist, that person has the right to a certain level of "don't ask / don't tell". This is a bit tricky to navigate ... a romantic embrace, a kiss, a love poem, or sex may all be ok - or not - depending on the person. That rule isn't easy to apply. But, I've now received, after months of talking with L and a lot of hard discussions, consent to my dating (and more), but that she doesn't really want to know details (yet - maybe not ever).

Like you, I am brutally honest. I expect my partners to be as well. When Cat and I opened our marriage she asked for a DADT policy and I reluctantly agreed. It drove me nuts. It felt like I was cheating because I had to hide things. I couldn't say I went out with so-and-so and had a really good time. I also felt like I was being lied to because she would leave those details out when I asked her how her night went. I saw it causing a lot of jealousy due to the fear of the unknown. We are working on this. Personally, I view DADT as a coping mechanism to try and avoid coming to terms with what is going on. It's not healthy in the long run.

The difference between our situations is that we both agreed to open the marriage, with both having other partners. I like to view a relationship as a contract of sorts, with terms and conditions. You sound like you successfully renegotiated your contract. Your GF has renogiated hers as well. To me, she has permission, whether she chooses to view it that way or not.

 

[kdt26417]

Re (from vinsanity0):

"Kevin, I think we may be the only two who see it this way."

Possibly ...

Re (from GalaGirl):

"You are not asking for permission from your wife for you to go have sex with someone. You are in charge of your body. She is not."

Well having some "power over your spouse's body" is an implied feature of traditional marriage, so I guess that's where the problem lies. You can't say, "I consent to what you want to do with your body," because it's not your place to consent to that, you just have to accept that the other person is going to do what they're going to do.

I can't argue with that, it just makes me kind of sad, it's a bit like realizing Santa Claus doesn't exist. Polyamory always (for me) used to have an ace with traditional marriage, because polyamory deferred to the rules of traditional marriage; that is, to the one critical rule of having a certain amount of say-so over what your spouse does with his/her body.

We're living in a new age. Those rules don't apply anymore. Oh sure we encourage each other to experience consent for each other, but in the end, consent simply isn't required ... no more so than permission is required. I wonder if I'll eventually have to try to explain that to my brother. Maybe he can bask in some blissful ignorance. Maybe on some level he already knows we all have complete autonomy. And that he owes it to his ex to excuse her, in spite of the way she treated him. I couldn't tell him that, but maybe in his darkest dreams he already knows.

It's true his ex could have played it differently. She could have at least been honest. Told my brother she was going to have sex with another man and that while she'd like my brother's blessing, she didn't insist on it, and would understand if my brother wanted to file for divorce. Maybe he wouldn't have felt as bitter in that scenario? as long as she hadn't pulled his kids away and sent him to the poorhouse. The fact that she conducted the affair in secret seems to be a big part of the problem. If you're going to sleep around on your husband, at least have the cojones to tell him so ahead of time.

Re:

"If you go have sex with a new partner when the marriage is closed? That's cheating."

Right, sorry, my bad. First you have to get (consent or) a divorce; then you can have sex with the new partner. Can't say that makes me feel better though ...

@ ambivulous ... I think I understand what you mean about the varying "degrees of DADT." We just about all have a point of TMI, right?

Re (from Leetah):

"Especially for women who more often than not are the ones who have given up economic autonomy in the division of labor that promised security allows. This is why men wanting to open up their marriages are held more accountable as their partner often has not the economic means to comfortably void the agreement and walk away if it is unacceptable."

I can see that. Although, does it mean the husband indeed can't exercise full autonomy over his own body? After all, his wife can't so easily survive a divorce. Hmmm, I'm starting to get confused again.

 

[KC43]

Kevin, autonomy and consent aren't mutually exclusive. What GalaGirl meant, I think, in the first bit you quoted from her is that yes, you're right, it isn't one spouse's right to tell the other what they can and can't do with their own body. But that isn't what consent is. That would be permission, going by the way I and several others here are defining it.

Permission = "You're allowed to use your body to have sex with whomever you want." No autonomy. The partner speaking is taking full power over their partner's body and choices.

Consent = "I will agree to and accept the fact that you are going to use your body to have sex with whomever you want." Autonomy. The partner speaking recognizes that the other partner owns their own body and can do whatever they choose, and is simply stating that they *agree* with the choice their partner is making.

Does that help at all?

In your brother's case, no, he would not have had the right to tell his wife "You aren't allowed to have sex with someone else." That presumes he has the authority to tell her what she can and can't do. Spouses, in my opinion, don't and shouldn't have that kind of authority over each other. It's a power imbalance, as I said before. However... he did have the right to say "I am not okay with you having sex with someone else, and if you do so, our marriage will be over." That presumes that he and she have equal authority over themselves, that she has the right to make her own choices... but that he disagrees with that particular choice and therefore if she makes it, there will be repercussions, because he also has the right to make his own choices.

What his wife did was unquestionably cheating, because she didn't even give him an opportunity to say "I'm not okay with this." She just went ahead and did it.

 

[kdt26417]

I have to be honest, differentiating between consent and permission seems to me a bit like splitting hairs. But I don't necessarily object to the differentiation, it's just that it's not the main thrust of my concern in this thread.

I mean are we saying, consent is required, but permission is not? because while I agree that needing permission is right out, I'm still asking if consent isn't needed either. I mean let's say my wife wants to sleep with another guy. She asks me how I feel about it and I say, "Mmmm, I'm not feeling good about that. Not good at all." Do I have to give/experience consent as a way of recognizing that it's her body and she can do what she wants with it? or is it okay for me to say, "I don't feel like I can consent to that."

Haven't many polyamorists made a fuss over the importance of mutual consent? Why the fuss if consent is merely the recognition of another person's already-existing autonomy, and thus not something that person has to obtain from anyone else?

Isn't divorce just as binding as consent?

By the way ... if my wife asks me for a divorce, can I legally refuse? What if I refuse, *and* I don't give/experience consent for the open status she wants in the marriage? Is she then free and clear to have sex with other guys before the marriage is dissolved?

Re:

"I am not okay with you having sex with someone else, and if you do so, our marriage will be over."

Wait, I thought the divorce had to be final before one could have sex with someone else. (Sorry for being a PITA ...)

 

[vinsanity0]

Saying if you do this thing our marriage is over smacks of coercion to me. Isn't that a power play?

 

[KC43]

I think consent is important because it means you and your partner are in agreement. Being autonomous and having the right to choose what we do includes choosing *not* to do things your partner doesn't agree to in the interests of keeping the relationship healthy and positive.

Doing something without your partner's agreement, or with their stated disagreement, is hurtful and disrespectful. Most of us prefer not to hurt or disrespect our partners. To me, that's why consent is important. I love Hubby. I want him to be happy, and I want to show him respect and consideration, just as I expect him to show those things to me.

 

[kdt26417]

@ vinsanity0 ... if it's a husband threatening to divorce his wife, then I think it's a power play, because women are a disadvantaged group in the workplace.

 

[KC43]

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.