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.

中文翻译：

---

性关系中的相互性：道德性行为的标准？

在本文中，我们挑战了有效同意是性接触被视为合乎道德的黄金标准的观点。我们首先回顾最近公众对同意作为一种道德标准的关注，然后主张一个超越法律和合同焦点的标准。这是相互性的标准，它超越了确保所有参与性接触的各方都知情、自主并且能够做出有效选择的保证：一个人也必须以关怀和爱的方式与另一个人相遇。我们使用 Iris Murdoch (1970) 的“爱心关注”态度概念来发展这一主张，它将我们的观点与尽职调查的责任区分开来，以确保每个人都愿意参与性行为，其他人的权利没有受到违反，正如 Dougherty (2018 年) 所强调的那样。我们还提出了三个反对使用相互性作为道德性行为的衡量标准的反对意见，即它是傲慢的，它是一种极端主义的立场，给个人带来了太大的负担并抑制了他们的自由，它是一种理想而不是要求. 然后我们看三个测试相互性结构的例子：典型的大学勾搭、性工作和通过荣耀漏洞和类似设置的匿名性。