Consent is not enough! Unless the alternative is contract

And why consent should absolutely be enough

Photo by Olivia Bauso on Unsplash

In the Mormon world, we do not talk about sex often, but when we do, we speak of two kinds: sex within a contract (good) and sex without a contract (bad). This contract is also known as a covenant, or marriage.

The law of chastity is a Christian virtue and a Mormon one by extension. It calls for complete abstinence outside of marriage and complete fidelity within. I hear defenders of chastity argue that consent is not enough, that sex should only happen within a contract or covenant because God only authorizes relations within these boundaries. The problem with this law—and it’s a BIG problem—is that sexual assault happens under contract ALL. THE. TIME. It never occurs under consent.

Law versus Love

I am tired of seeing the law of chastity held on a pedestal and the ethic of consent thrown by the wayside in religious circles, even scorned and mocked as if consent is the great evil separating us from all that is good. I wonder if those who side with consent and those who side with contract are simply worshipping two different gods.

The god of contracts: Supreme male. Represents power, authority, and judgement; He is the law, the one we obey in hopes of becoming “good”.

The god of love: Represents harmony, solidarity, and the dignity and sanctity of life. Followers of this god do not find value in being good as much as in doing good to self and others. This is where we find the goodness that is our deepest self.

In romantic relationships, consent honors the dignity and autonomy of both partners. Contracts dismiss autonomy and prioritize obedience to outside authority.

I fear that this contract value system we bow down to contributes to the prevalence of marital rape and assault.

In 1993, Oklahoma and North Carolina were the final states in the U.S. to illegalize marital rape. Ten states still hold legal exemptions that treat it as a lesser crime. According to the National Domestic Voilence Hotline, an estimated 10-14% of women are raped by their spouse. Their website states,

“Marital rape is a serious and prevalent form of domestic violence and sexual assault. Yet due to the legal history of intimate partner violence, a misconception perpetuates that marital rape is not rape. This perception of women seen as objects of property by common law, unable to handle their own legal affairs continues to influence the perception of men, police officers, prosecutors, and judges.”

What does this culture do to our women, and what does it make of our men? Our churches teach that consent belongs to God. Yet, while the God of authority isn’t here, and in a patriarchal society and church, the power of consent is delegated to men. And as it turns out, men can get God’s consent for just about anything.

When we as a church heavily prioritize law over love before marriage, is it any wonder why law continues to supercede love after the wedding day?

The Lens of Christian Conservatism

Photo by Mitchell Leach on Unsplash

Christianity, and it turns out especially Mormonism, is tightly woven with conservatism. Pew Research Center published research in 2016 that found Mormons to be the most Republican-leaning religion in the United States, with 7/10 Mormons claiming the conservative party.

Another interesting study found conservatives to be less able to identify rape than their nonconservative counterparts.¹ The study results piqued my interest because they perfectly represent what I have observed within my community. I wonder if conservatives’ inability to know rape when confronted with it is because of the God lens through which they see the world. In their eyes, doing wrong is synonymous with disobeying God’s authority, not with the harm we cause another. Perhaps this is why when someone calls out Donald Trump for sexual assault, Christian conservatives come to his defense. Evangelist Franklin Graham, son of the famous preacher Billy Graham, said this in response to Donald’s sexual misconduct allegations:

“Remember when Jesus told the crowd, ‘Let the one without sin cast the first stone’ and that slowly, the entire audience began to disappear? All of us have sinned.”

All of us have ‘sinned’? The story he refers to is the account of Jesus’ response to the woman caught in adultery. To place sexual assault under the same condemnation as adultery, and even consensual relations between unmarried partners, is highly typical of Christian conservatives. I find it alarming that we administer the same term (“sin”) to describe consensual affection as we do rape and assault. No, we are not all guilty of assault, which should be set far apart from loving, unwed sexuality. And far too many of us are guilty of assault, I fear, because of our culture which legitimizes God’s consent over our bodies instead of honoring our own.

The LDS church has an increasing reputation of protecting perpetrators of abuse within their walls and dealing with them in-house through repentance processes instead of turning them over to law enforcement. Is this because they see the abuse of another person as a crime against God rather than a crime against the victim? Often when the church holds men accountable, it is only accountability to God for the sake of their own forgiveness, and the protection of the survivor is often left unattended. It seems all too convenient that God’s forgiveness is so obtainable. It’s much easier to offend a distant God and ask forgiveness from him than face the harm we cause to another living, breathing human.

At its worst, contractual sex standards breed and accommodate sexual assault with little to no accountability. But there are less ominous ramifications than assault, which can also cause serious rifts and disconnect between couples.

Consent > Permission

In a culture that feeds men sexual entitlement and women the role of sexual submission, too many couples are suffering the consequences. Approximately 34% of women report having unwanted sex due to marital obligation.

Definitions are fluid and negotiable. So, when I separate these two words, consent and permission, I’m identifying a need for differentiation between two meanings. These two meanings are important to contrast, yet they are so often mistaken for each other.

Permission is an agreement that gives a lopsided allowance to one benefactor over the other. I used to give my husband permission to drink straight from the milk jug in the fridge. It benefited him and depleted me of my daily calcium intake. I have since rescinded that permission.

On the other hand, he had my full consent when he suggested taking our Sky Miles to New Orleans for Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour last year. I love Tay, he likes Tay. And we love to travel. We both felt enthusiastic about the trip and had a fantastic time.

You know who’s not having a fantastic time? Anyone settling for permission-based sex.

Permission from partner.

I first realized the need to differentiate between consent and permission while watching the Netflix series Never Have I Ever, a coming-of-age comedic drama released in 2020.

Paxton and Devi

Devi tells her high school boyfriend Paxton that she would really love it if she weren’t a virgin anymore and, given his previous life experience, he’s pretty sure he knows how to help. They find themselves alone together and make their preparations. Devi seems confident with the passionate kissing as it progresses. However, in the middle of the kind of kiss that could lead to more, she tenses up—still participating but showing definite signs of hesitance and/or discomfort. Even though Devi had permitted Paxton to have sex with her, her consent changed due to her discomfort levels during the process. Sensing that Devi is no longer enjoying herself, Paxton stops the physicality from continuing. Devi implies that she would be fine moving forward but Paxton declines. They will move as slowly as it takes for Devi to be ready, not just willing.

Settling for permission in sexual relationships, especially when doing so to avoid an undesirable outcome, can create resentment in one or both partners, drain the eros (life-giving energy)² in a relationship, and create barriers to true intimacy in exchange for conflict avoidance.³

In more serious circumstances, permission for sex is granted as a response to pressure, fear, or exploitation of vulnerabilities. None of these scenarios exhibit consent.

Permission from God

Imagine running over to your dad’s house with your new love, knocking on the door and asking, “Hey Pops, is it okay with you if we have sex tonight?” Nothing could be more efficient in killing the mood. But for some Christians, this is what covenantal/contractual sex feels like. After the wedding, a few things can happen mentally that are not so apparent on the outside. For one, God and clergy now permit them to be sexual. Instead of having sex because they’re in love, they end up having sex because they’re allowed. While this dynamic affects couples to different degrees, their sexual progression happens on someone else’s terms, not their own, and that robs a couple of something powerful—the sanctity of their own consent.

For another, they enter into a covenantal obligation within a patriarchal society or church, which endows men with sexual proclivity and women with sexual obligation to their male partner. Even when the man is especially sensitive to the feelings of his spouse, the “duty sex” mental frame can inhibit the desire for sexual connection in women.

One study took survey responses from 599 participants and found that women who engaged in sexual activities out of obligation had lower levels of sexual and relationship satisfaction. This obligation belief is highly connected with purity culture.

New research is showing that our beliefs can have a large correlation with sexual and marital satisfaction.

This 2024 peer-reviewed study in the Sociology of Religion⁴ linked women’s subscription to purity culture beliefs with lower satisfaction in marriage and higher rates of sexual pain. Researchers surveyed over 5,000 Christian women to find out their past and current beliefs regarding purity culture.

The tropes they asked about included these:

• Gatekeeping: The belief that women must be modest to manage male sexuality

• Perpetual Lust: Men are biologically lustful and women must adhere

• Soul Ties: Sex bonds you to another and that leaves less of you to offer in a future relationships

• Obligation Sex: A wife owes sex to her husband

• “Sexual methadone: Women must say yes to sex to keep their husbands from seeking it elsewhere.

This article from Psypost.org summarized the research and commented:

“Women who never believed these tropes had the highest levels of marital and sexual satisfaction, suggesting a protective effect for women who never internalized purity culture teachings…

Seeing sex as a female obligation and a male entitlement leads to horrible sex, frankly,’ Sawatsky [co-author of the study] told PsyPost. ‘It’s highly destructive to women’s marital and sexual satisfaction and is even associated with higher rates of sexual pain disorders.’”

Consent is enough!

Evidently, our contract-based rhetoric concerning sexual relations fails us in certain regards. Church leaders have diminished consent to mean relationships where “anything goes.” Ironically, I think that definition fits their contract law more accurately.

Consent means no strings attached, but plenty of education, respect, and autonomy. I do not believe you can give consent when exchanging tit for tat (no pun intended) whether that exchange transfers money or dish duty. Consent is informed and enthusiastic. It is honest. It cannot be given once and assumed forever. It can only be given on equal playing grounds. It is a living intimacy of mind and attentiveness between partners. It prioritizes mutual adoration. Going from a contract lens to a consent lens is a mighty shift. But I believe it can bring helpful results, especially for upcoming generations.

Wondering where to start when reframing ideas on sex and marriage? Everyone has their own journey, but this article by

Celeste Davis

remains the most pivotal and helpful influence I have come across while searching for solutions to the purity beliefs instilled in me by my religious community. She does an incredible job paving the way for a new paradigm around the relationships of heterosexual couples. I found it especially helpful to read the personal accounts of individuals who have moved past what the author calls “patriarchal sex” into more fulfilling relationship frameworks both within marriage and after divorce.

Do you not like sex or do you just not like patriarchal sex?

The virtue of consent is contested heavily by mainstream Christianity, Mormonism, and Patriarchy. But many couples in these groups suffer in the blindspots of covenant or contract obligations. And much abuse occurs when we prioritize law over love. Our members and marriages deserve more. ⁵

1. Rosewood, Emily, and Laura Hammond. "The Impacts of Conservatism, Social Dominance, and Rape Myth Acceptance on Blame Attribution in Ambiguous Rape Scenarios." Violence Against Women 29.15-16 (2023): 3007-3023.

2. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife speaks beautiful words about eros energy in sexual relationships

3. There are plenty of scenarios where someone might need to prioritize safety over conflict resolution in a partnership. The hotline mentioned here might be helpful for those who need to bring up concerns with a safe third party.

4. Joanna Sawatsky, Rebecca Lindenbach, Sheila Wray Gregoire, Keith Gregoire, Sanctified Sexism: Effects of Purity Culture Tropes on White Christian Women’s Marital and Sexual Satisfaction and Experience of Sexual Pain, Sociology of Religion, 2024;, srae031, https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srae031

5. Understanding that all of this focuses mostly on heterosexual problems