“May you live to see your children’s children” reflects a wish for a particular blessing, the blessing of being reminded of one’s true humanity through the grateful acceptance of duties toward others. That is a blessing that those who see others simply as objects or tools for their own pleasure, sexual and otherwise, will never know.

A recent Vulture article reporting on the sexual proclivities and alleged abusive activities of fantasy author Neil Gaiman has rekindled debates about power and consent, in large part because it includes a disclaimer about BDSM. After describing a violent sexual encounter between Gaiman and a young woman named Scarlett Pavlovich, the author states: “Had Gaiman and Pavlovich been engaging in BDSM, this could conceivably have been part of a rape scene, a scenario sometimes described as consensual nonconsent. But that would have required careful negotiation in advance, which she says they had not done.” Gaiman, of course, alleges otherwise, claiming that he has “never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with anyone.” The whole disturbing story is a stark reminder of how weak the foundations of modern sexual ethics are.

Gaiman, once a vocal supporter of the #MeToo movement, fits into that category of performative feminists whose commitment to the cause doesn’t extend beyond social media platforms. I have always found such cheap piety to be deeply implausible. Not to mention, the existence of ex-wives (two, in Gaiman’s case) is always a rather troubling sign. What do they think of their erstwhile husband’s vocal online advocacy for women, women’s rights, and “the gynocracy”? The proof of a passionate commitment to respecting women is not some cost-free recitation of feminist clichés on social media that garners congratulatory retweets or Instagram likes. It is how these men treat real women in real time. Ex-wives are likely expert commentators on such matters, something that applies to the famous, such as Gaiman, as much as to the unknown online wannabe.

But setting aside his apparent hypocrisy, the garish allegations against Gaiman are, if true, the consequences of the logic of the sexual revolution, albeit rather extreme ones. That his claim of consent sounds plausible, even if ultimately untenable, speaks to the cultural intuitions of our day, where we do not typically regard sexual acts as having intrinsic value. Further, if sex is primarily about self-directed physical or emotional satisfaction, then the others involved are necessarily turned into instruments for the achievement of such an end. They become things or objects, of use only as far as they make one feel good. It is not a logic restricted to sexual matters. Ebenezer Scrooge viewed his clients not as people but as entries in his ledger. It is the most dramatic form of the failing anthropology of the modern world, forced now to reduce philosophies of sex to debates over consent, and thus to defend the most obviously degrading behavior as the glorious culmination of our freedom.

Read More