Permissible relationships

[Fragment]

I'm curious to hear people's general philosophies regarding sexual relationships. I think most of us can imagine an ideal relationship. Both people enthusiastically say "yes" as a sign of their love for each other. It is pleasurable, maybe even to the point of ecstasy. Neither side leaves with any regrets. There is no damage, physically, mentally or emotionally. The outside community is accepting of the relationship so neither person has any feelings of shame or guilt. That would be an ideal sexual relationship.

Ignore that.

Think of the minimum level of relationship. "It's not good, but it should be allowed." Maybe you think that a sex between a tired wife not in the mood and a husband who says "but c'mon baby I've been working all day for you" is something that should be permissible, even if it's not that good.

Fundamentally I think there are two main things to discuss- harm and consent. I'll let you define those as you wish (maybe post with your working definitions). But I'm curious as to which, if either, or both, you think is necessary for a relationship to be allowed (legally or socially- that discussion can happen in the comments, too).

Note: I'm also not specifically asking about adult-minor sexual contact. The question, in theory, covers adult-adult sex, too.

[BLueRibbon]

I voted for number 1. Harm avoidance is extremely important, but even AASC may cause harm.

[PorcelainLark]

I think it depends on the kind of harm. As with AASC, you wouldn't want to be uncomfortable or awkward afterwards. I think that's more difficult than physical harm. If you come away from a sexual act feeling bad and become preoccupied by it, that's where the problem usually is. Consent can help deal with that to a degree, but just agreeing to something isn't a guarantee that you'll feel OK about it afterwards.
Ideally people would use their discretion to determine whether or not the other person wants and will not regret a sexual act, but the drive towards sex often overpowers a person's restraint.

I voted for it being consensual and with no harm, although I have the caveats that consent should be a higher bar than just agreeing and physical harm isn't necessarily as bad as psychological harm (for comparison, breaking your arm when compared with being bullied is usually less traumatic).

[Outis]

I would say that as with adult adult relationships, there should be consent and the relationship must not be harmful.
If I had a friend in a relationship that I felt was harmful to him or her I would strongly advise them to leave it.

[Strato]

“… two main things to discuss- harm and consent. I'll let you define those as you wish (maybe post with your working definitions). But I'm curious as to which, if either, or both, you think is necessary for a relationship to be allowed (legally or socially- that discussion can happen in the comments, too).”

On the topic of allowing a relationship to exist, I would prefer a focus on truth rather than an adherence to political correctness and the language of identity. Although I have selected must not cause harm and must have consent, I believe the topic of harm and consent is way more deep and multi-faceted, and deserves fuller debate.

We should focus on the individual person rather than asking ourselves what the public might prefer, to make them more sympathetic. To do this, one needs to consider the components that make up an individual’s life: their desires, their behavior, their personality, their social landscape, their sexual feelings, etc.

Such (respectful) personal considerations may to some extent have increased human rights for adults over recent decades, for example: easier to get married and divorced, living together unmarried, LGBT…, etc. However, age of consent laws continue to deny rights to the youngest members of society. Arguably such laws exist to strengthen family control and oppression, perhaps even to promote consumerism - advantageous indeed to governments and corporations alike. In reality, the under-the-thumb child is denied risk-taking opportunities and learning about the world around them. In the collective West, children may just as well be categorized as a different species from adults … a subordinate one at that.

The oft-quoted mantra: ‘children are asexual and cannot consent’, has been allowed to prevail across collective west culture(s). Consequently, exploration into and discussions around child sexuality rarely take place, even less the role an adult might play in a given child’s sexual development, as observer or participant. To some extent such research depends on grants, and money would not ordinarily be handed over for studies of this nature, and possibly future studies.

Put it this way, we have only partly managed to distance ourselves from heterosexual oppression and prejudice. Once children and adults begin to be treated as the same species, with adequate research into childhood sexuality already undertaken and social acknowledgement of a child’s sexual needs backed by changes in the law, only then can we begin to close the door finally on decades-long oppression and denial of human rights.

[FairBlueLove]

It's kind of funny... Choice n.2 didn't receive any vote, yet - assuming I understood it correctly - that reflects how we treat children in many accepted instances (school, religion...).

[Jim Burton]

It's certainly a funny talking point that social ostracism has forced MAPs to reject those wider societal values towards minors teleios usually project unto MAPs.

[Strato]

It's kind of funny... Choice n.2 didn't receive any vote, yet - assuming I understood it correctly - that reflects how we treat children in many accepted instances (school, religion...).

I agree! It is as if the world at some point in the past got moved from its primary track of reasonableness and cohesion, onto a side line where right is wrong and wrong is right. We can still glimpse the primary track from our carriage, but there is no clear way of rejoining the track to resume our original journey.

[Fragment]

It's kind of funny... Choice n.2 didn't receive any vote, yet - assuming I understood it correctly - that reflects how we treat children in many accepted instances (school, religion...).

It's clear evidence that the personhood of minors is largely rejected by society.

To be honest, even outside of sex you can see the trend away from freedom and towards safety in parenting. Look at your local playground compared to a playground in the 80s for evidence.

I think part of the problem is the decline in fertility rates. When you have 1-3 kids instead of 5-8 kids you're going to be more inclined to take a "protection" mindset over a "liberation" mindset.

MAPs obviously have a vested interest, but I think more than that MAPs try to look at things through the viewpoint of minors. We want minors to have a rich range of experiences, even if there is some risk. A danger free life is basically impossible, the important thing is that the person involved WANTS to engage in a certain behavior. That's what the results so far seem to indicate.

[Joanne7315]

Many will jump in and say that Minors are unable to give informed consent to a relationship. Personally I disagree and I think they are fully capable. Minors more than adults are capable of sincere love. Physical connection is an extension of love. I believe they are capable of love.