Skip to main content
Log in

Mutuality in Sexual Relationships: a Standard of Ethical Sex?

  • Published:
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we challenge the idea that valid consent is the golden standard by which a sexual encounter is deemed ethical. We begin by reviewing the recent public focus on consent as an ethical standard, and then argue for a standard that goes beyond legalistic and contractual foci. This is the standard of mutuality which extends beyond the assurance that all parties engaging in a sexual encounter are informed, autonomous, and otherwise capable of making a valid choice: one must also encounter the other with care and loving attention. We develop this claim using Iris Murdoch’s (1970) concept of an attitude of “loving attention,” which differentiates our view from the duty of due diligence to ensure that each person is a willing participant in sex, that the rights of others have not been violated, as emphasized by Dougherty (2018). We also address three objections to using mutuality as a measure of ethical sex, namely that it is patronizing, that it is a maximalist position that puts too great a burden on individuals and inhibits their freedom, and that it is an ideal rather than a requirement. We then look at three examples that test the construct of mutuality: the typical college hook-up, sex work, and anonymous sex through glory holes and similar set-ups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ethical good sex refers both to that which is morally right (morally compulsory), which can be contrasted with being morally wrong, and morally good (morally desirable), which can be contrasted with morally objectionable. Acting against standards that fall under the first but not the second is subject to moral punishment; living up to the standards of what is morally good is praised while it is simply expected that one keeps the standards of what is regarded as morally right. We do acknowledge that this distinction is interpreted differently in moral theories.

  2. Understanding the conditions and context of the other can become even more obscured in the contemporary, online context, when we consider platforms such as the popular OnlyFans, in which individuals sell sexually explicit online content as independent contractors. In the BBC Three documentary Nudes4Sale that covered OnlyFans and similar platforms, a substantial minority of content providers were suspected to be underaged, and some cited housing and financial insecurity as factors for publishing adult content (Reynolds 2020).

References

Download references

Declarations

There are no sources of funding to declare, no conflicts of interest, no data collected to share, and all authors made substantive contributions to this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon Lamb.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lamb, S., Gable, S. & de Ruyter, D. Mutuality in Sexual Relationships: a Standard of Ethical Sex?. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 24, 271–284 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10150-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10150-8

Keywords

Navigation